Disposed¶20

Si Gd (M) Meena Chhikara v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/12978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Meena Chhikara; SI GD (M); Union of India and Ors.; W.P.(C) 12978/2023; High Court of Delhi; salary claim rejected; period 30.05.2020 to 19.07.2020; containment zone; Government of Haryana notification; leave regularisation; arbitrary recovery; fresh representation; personal hearing; revival of writ petition; disposal; V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora; order dated 09.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive monetary relief granted at this stage. Petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents within two weeks; respondents to decide it within four weeks of receipt after giving a personal hearing, convey the decision and take any follow-up action within a further four weeks; liberty reserved to seek revival of the writ petition if aggrieved. ¶20

Si Gd (M) Meena Chhikara Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for salary for the period 30.05.2020 to 19.07.2020, and whether the leave for that period should be regularised with payment of accrued salary and refund of any recovered amounts. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation along with the relevant documents to the respondents within two weeks.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

This Court observed that the respondents had not considered the notification(s) issued by the Government of Haryana while forming an opinion on the aspect of release of salary.

¶17

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to decide the fresh representation within four weeks of its receipt, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.ratio¶17
The decision on the representation shall be conveyed to the petitioner, and any follow-up action taken within a further four weeks thereafter.ratio¶18
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the writ petition if aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 12978/2023), High Court of Delhi, disposed of by V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., on 09.01.2026. The petitioner, SI GD (M) Meena Chhikara, challenged the respondents' order dated 25.02.2022 rejecting her claim for salary for the period 30.05.2020 to 19.07.2020, and sought regularisation of leave, credit of accrued salary, and repayment of any amount arbitrarily recovered. Counsel relied on Government of Haryana notifications showing her village and the road to her gali were declared a containment zone for different periods, preventing her from joining duty. Observing that the respondents had not considered those notification(s) while forming an opinion on release of salary, the Court declined to adjudicate the claim itself and instead directed: (i) the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents within two weeks; (ii) the respondents to decide it within four weeks of receipt after giving an opportunity of personal hearing; (iii) the decision to be conveyed and follow-up action taken within a further four weeks; and (iv) liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the writ petition if aggrieved by the resultant order.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12978/2023

¶4

SI GD (M) MEENA CHHIKARA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar & Mr. Tejas Bhonge, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC with Mr. Shrey Sharma and Mr. Prarabdh Tiwari, Advs. for R-1/UOI Mr. Vinod Sawant, Legal Officer and Insp. Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.01.2026 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶11

(a)“To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Order dated 25.05.2022.

¶12

(b)To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to regularize the leaves of the Petitioner and to credit the salary/pay/amount duly accruing to her after the said regularization.

¶13

(c) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to pay back the amount (if any) arbitrarily recovered from the Petitioner.

¶14

(d)To pass any such other or grant relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem right and appropriate in the present Petition.”

¶15

In effect, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the respondents whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for salary during the period of 30.05.2020 to 19.07.2020.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/01/2026 at 13:20:48

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification issued by the Government of Haryana to show that the village and the road leading to the gali where the petitioner was residing was declared as a containment zone, for different periods, because of which she could not join her duties. As we note the respondents have not considered the notification(s) issued by the Government of Haryana to form an opinion on the aspect of release of salary, we are of the view that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation along with the relevant documents to the respondents within two weeks from today for the consideration of respondents who, by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, decide the representation within four weeks from the receipt of the copy of the representation.

¶18

The decision shall be conveyed to the petitioner and if any follow up action need to be taken, the same shall be taken within further four weeks thereafter.

¶19

It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, to be passed by the respondents, liberty shall be with the petitioner to file an application for revival of this writ petition.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶22

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶23

JANUARY 9, 2026/ msh

¶24

Si Gd (M) Meena Chhikara v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Si Gd (M) Meena Chhikara v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruma Bt College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

M/S. Negolice India Ltd. Vs Public Works Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Satya Sharma Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Grimme International Beteiligungs Gmbh Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Smt Kiran Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sunil Kumar Vs District Magistrate & Ors.

Anil Ahluwalia Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Lokesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Union of India & Ors. Vs (639571) Ex Mwo Satyawan Bhardwaj

Saurav Roy Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mool Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Routu Kishore Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rinku Devi Vs Union of India and Others

Dharmendra Vs Union of India & Ors.