Neelam Rathee Dahiya And & ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

{2024:PHHC:036933-DB}
  

   

    




  






 !"# #$%  "# !&






&""

'

#!%  "# !&






 

(!

#)*
!

+,&"$( &+ - !.&# &#!

#)*
!&

+,&"$( &, "$ &#!

 




 










 








 




 !

"

  &+ - !.&# &#!/ +

01

  #
 



 



 $




%& &'

%&%%

(

) *
+ 

+  

 ,&&&-.,&&&"

%&,&
 

*2 *33

"4 &  #05 6

40







$ 

  

 /
*2 *33
0) 1

) *
+ 

  

$



*


,  $6 6 40

.04 .270

6 40 2
   



.
"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 Suresh Kumar 2024.03.18 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

{2024:PHHC:036933-DB}




8



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."

 /
 $


(




 * 


 
*

 
 
  
 

 



 

 





        

 

         

 !"#
$
      

  

          

 

!"#

 

$

%

&

   '

$

%

&

Suresh Kumar 2024.03.18 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document