IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 13, 2026 MADHU BALA ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the promotion order as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Science dated 02.01.2025, Annexure P-10, and also the pay fixation order dated 28.01.2025, Annexure P-12, to the extent it allows notional pay fixation with effect from 22.03.2016 and actual monetary benefits to her with effect from 01.01.2025. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay actual monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 22.03.2016, i.e., the date she has been granted ante-dated promotion as TGT (Science), along with all consequential benefits.

2. The claim was partially accepted during pendency of the petition, and the petitioner was released arrears of salary as TGT (Science)

₹

with effect from 24.07.2020 to 31.12.2024, amounting to 3,56,960, which was duly acknowledged by him vide receipt dated 10.10.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for no reason the petitioner was denied promotion from the post of JBT teacher to that of TGT with effect from 22.03.2016, though her junior had been promoted from that date. It was sheer negligence on the part of the Department that her case was not considered for granting the due benefits. She was made to suffer and had to approach this Court twice seeking the due benefits. Also, at no stage was the petitioner conveyed that her case for promotion had been considered or rejected by the Department for any reason.

4. Learned State counsel however contended that actual benefits were not admissible to the petitioner from 22.03.2016, as her case for promotion had been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 14.03.2016, but was not found eligible on account of her B.Sc. marks being less than fifty per cent. The assertion has been made on the basis of original record produced in Court. Also, particulars of certain documents were required to be verified which took some time. In this regard she has referred to the following part of the instructions, Annexure ‘A’:

It is most humbly submitted here that working in good faith, the promotion case of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Departmental Document Verification Committee (DVC) and was not considered eligible. Later on, the Department in pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 20.11.2019, considered the representation of the petitioner and re-verified the documents of the petitioner and thereby granted promotion on the post of TGT Science in the year 2020 w.e.f the year 2018 (as prayed by the petitioner in that writ petition) subject to the terms and conditions. However, at the time of promotion, there was some discrepancy in the educational documents of the petitioner w.r.t. the registration no. mentioned in the DMC. The respondent Department, then, uprightly got this discrepancy verified from the concerned University, which took some reasonable time. Moreover, at the time of this promotion and with the passage of time, the department faced some difficulties due to lack of seniority list as JBT is a feeder/district Cadre post, senior-junior issues emerged. Later on, the tentative State level seniority list for the purpose of promotion on the post of TGTs was prepared in the year 2022. …

She is, however, not in a position to dispute that rejection of petitioner’s case for promotion for want of essential qualification as JBT teacher was never conveyed to her.

5. Heard.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinbefore, it is apparent that the Department has not been able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for not considering the petitioner for promotion