← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/9532/2025disposed of

Santosh Gupta v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-05-01Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya2 pages

CWP-9532-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9532-2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 Santosh Gupta

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant from the date her juniors have been promoted, i.e., 07.01.2022, and release pay as well as retiral/consequential financial benefits. 2.

Learned State counsel contends that vide office order dated 25.04.2025, the petitioner stands promoted as Assistant notionally with effect from 07.01.2022.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits since the promotion was denied for no fault of hers, she is entitled to actual benefits with effect from the date her juniors have been promoted. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondents seeking actual benefits, and the same may be ordered to be decided within a specified period. PAYAL 2025.05.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP-9532-2025 -24.

Notice of motion.

5.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State and submits that in case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the same will be decided by respondent no.2/Director, Secondary Education, by passing a speaking/reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months.

6.

In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 7.

Ordered accordingly.

8.

In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of ₹50,000 to the petitioner. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 01.05.2025 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2025.05.02 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment