SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 837

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Bhagwanti – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working on the post of Accountant, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent and the post of Superintendent became available w.e.f., 01.03.2013 and the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion but the said benefit of promotion was not given to her and ultimately, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation hence, once the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent while in service, the respondents are under an obligation to promote the petitioner on the said post with retrospective effect.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is not the case of the petitioner that anybody who was junior to the petitioner, has been promoted to the post of Superintendent during the service career of the petitioner hence, the claim of the petitioner as being raised in the present writ petition, is liable to be rejected.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top