Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam Rathee Dahiya And & Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 14 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036933-DB
{2024:PHHC:036933-DB}
211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1357-2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
NEELAM RATHEE DAHIYA AND OTHERS
........Appellants
V/s.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly states that in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.10005-10006 of 2010 titled as Benu Bajaj Vs. The State of Haryana and Others and the connected Appeal, the present appeal would not survive.
2. In Benu Bajaj (Supra), the Supreme Court after considering the law and the judgment held in Union of India and Others Vs. Krishna Kumar and Others ; (2019) 4 SCC 319 has held as under:-
"9. Therefore, mere fact that the vacancy arose prior to the amendment in Rules would not be relevant as the consideration for promotion was after the amendment of the Rules. Geeta Devi was not eligible for promotion under the amended Rules as her previous service was not on regular basis.
10. In view of the said fact, we find that the order of the High Court suffers from patent illegality. Thus the same is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent-Geeta Devi is dismissed. The appellant - Benu Bajaj shall be 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:20:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036933-DB {2024:PHHC:036933-DB} LPA-1357-2009 (O&M) Page 2 of 2 given all financial benefits, if any, which accrues to her as the Head of the Department. On the other hand, Geeta Devi shall be considered for promotion, if any, in accordance with law. However, no recovery from Geeta Devi be made on account of the financial benefits given to her as she has discharged duties of higher responsibility, in view of the judgment in 'Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana' reported in (1983) 4 SCC 291."
3. In view of the above, the present Appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
4. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed of accordingly.
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
JUDGE
March 14, 2024 [SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036933-DB 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 23:20:06 :::