Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  INSC 477 (9 June 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3118 OF
2008 SHAKUNTALA Appellant(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3155 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4842 OF 2010 (Arising
out of SLP(C) No. 4190/2007)
O R D E R
APPEAL NO. 3118/2008:
learned counsel for the parties.
It has not been disputed before us that the appellant herein Smt.
Shakuntala has been promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from
18.3.2008. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that
even though the appellant has been promoted with effect from 18.3.2008, but in
fact she was already promoted on 21.5.2004 and subsequently she was reverted to
the post of Sub Inspector on some non-existent grounds.
2 We have been given to understand that the State Government had
issued a show cause notice to the appellant which was replied to by the
appellant but the objections which were raised by her have not been considered
by the State in proper perspective and have been rejected in a slipshod manner.
substantial relief has already been granted to the appellant during the
pendency of the present appeal, we do not deem it fit and proper to decide this
appeal on merits. But we are of the opinion that the interest of the appellant
has to be safeguarded, that is to say, as to from what date she would be
entitled for promotion on the post of Inspector.
counsel for the appellant contended that since the appellant was already
promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from 21.5.2004, there was no
occasion for the respondent-State to have her reverted and then subsequently
consider her for promotion and finally promote her to the post of Inspector
with effect from 18.3.2008. The learned counsel for the respondent State on the
other hand submitted that for the reasons recorded in the various orders, the
aforesaid step was taken by the State.
At this stage, we are not required to decide the said issue but we
keep it open to be decided afresh by the respondents. In this view of the
matter, we grant liberty to the appellant to file fresh representation before
the respondent State bringing all facts to its notice, within a period of 15
days hereof. On such representation being received by the respondent State, the
same shall be considered afresh on merits in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of its receipt, under intimation to the appellant.
however, clarify that any order passed prior hereto would not come in the way
of the appellant for considering her case on merits and the respondents
authorities would not be impressed by any observation made by the High Court
against the appellant.
further clarified that in case it is found that some other persons are likely
to be affected by the order granting promotion to the appellant from an earlier
date, then they would also be heard by the respondent State.
aforesaid observation and direction this 4 appeal stands disposed of. Parties
to bear their respective costs.
APPEAL NO. 3155/2008:
learned counsel for the parties.
counsel for the respondent State informed us that the case of the appellant
could not be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector since a case
filed against her under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was
pending. The State has filed a cancellation report on the strength of which the
criminal case has been dropped and the cancellation report filed by the
respondent State has been accepted on 8.3.2010.
we have been given to understand that against this order, the complainant has
preferred a criminal revision which is pending disposal on merits before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
as it may, we direct the respondent State to consider the case of the appellant
for promotion to the post of Inspector within a period of three months from the
date of communication of this order, which would be subject to the ultimate
result of the criminal 5 revision filed by the complainant. With the aforesaid
direction, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
appellants in this appeal are claiming promotion to the post of Inspector.
During the pendency of the matter before this Court, all the appellants have
been promoted to the post of Inspector on different dates. This statement has
been made by the learned counsel for the respondent State and there is no
reason to doubt the correctness thereof. Therefore, this appeal for all
practical purposes has been rendered infructuous and it is hereby disposed of
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that an application for directions
has been filed by appellant No.3 - Savitri Devi claiming some more reliefs as
she was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector whereas other similarly situated
persons were promoted to the post of Inspector from an earlier date. If the
appellant No.3 has any grievance, she would be at liberty to file appropriate
representation with the State which may be considered on merits, under
intimation to 6 appellant No.3. The application for direction is disposed of
.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)
.....................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
June 9, 2010.