STATE OF HARYANA . vs PARTAP SINGH . — C.A. No. 6292/2004

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010011742001

Filing Date

15-Jan-2001

Registration No

C.A. No. 6292/2004

Diary Number

1174/2001

Order Date

22-Sep-2006

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA .

    Adv. T. V. GEORGE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARTAP SINGH .

    Adv. BALBIR SINGH GUPTA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 25-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 25-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 12-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 07-Nov-2005
  7. 18-Apr-2005
  8. 16-Jul-2004
  9. 05-Apr-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 12-Jan-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 19-Dec-2003
  12. 14-Nov-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 12-Sep-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 29-Aug-2003
  15. 11-Jul-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 07-May-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 10-Mar-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 13-Jan-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 25-Nov-2002
  20. 18-Nov-2002
  21. 15-Nov-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 19-Jul-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 22-Apr-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 11-Mar-2002
  25. 04-Feb-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 18-Jul-2001
  27. 12-Jul-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 12-Apr-2001
  29. 26-Feb-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 15-Jan-2001

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6292/2004

casestatus.in Summary

On 22/09/2006, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana (and State of Rajasthan), setting aside the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the Court directed that any benefits already received by respondents Partap Singh and others would not be recovered, and they would not be entitled to fixation under Rule 4.4 of the Rules. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case