Dismissed

Neelam Rani v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2022CWP/25679/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought mandamus directing action against a junior colleague for sexual harassment and abusive language. The High Court, finding an alternative remedy under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, held that it did not entertain the petition directly and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the statutory redressal mechanism under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.

Neelam Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.25679 of 2022 DATE OF DECISION : 11.11.2022

¶4

Dr. Neelam Rani …Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶9

Present : Mr. Mohit Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Petition herein, inter alia , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take stringent action against respondent No.5, in accordance with The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she is posted as Incharge of Government Veterinary Hospital, Manawali as Veterinary Surgeon. Respondent No.5 is her junior. He is in the habit of using abusive and filthy language at work place. Petitioner moved an application dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) for taking action against respondent No.5 but no action was taken. Pursuant to her application dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) moved before Principal Secretary, an enquiry was marked wherein petitioner was held responsible for not producing any evidence or witness. Petitioner again moved an application dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) seeking action against respondent No.5. She also moved another application dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) whereas no action was taken. 3. Petitioner also submitted representation dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) but the same has also not been adverted till date. Hence, the present petition.

¶13

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return from any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required�

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was sexually harassed by respondent No.5 and respondents No.2 to 4 have deliberately and intentionally neglected to take any stringent action against respondent No.5. He further submits that sexual harassment at workplace is not only an offence but also a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India��

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is a comprehensive legislation to provide for safe, secure and enabling environment to every woman, irrespective of her age or employment status and it also lays down a statutory redressal mechanism. Petitioner has got alternative and efficacious remedy under the said Act. In the premise, this Court, therefore, refrains to directly entertain the writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction qua the averments made in this petition.

¶18

Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in accordance with law as aforesaid.

¶19

NOVEMBER 11, 2022 (ARUN MONGA) Shalini JUDGE

¶20

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶21

SHALINI BHATIA 2022.11.24 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Neelam Rani v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Rani v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Suraj Bhan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pinki Devi Vs Director General of Punjab and Another

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohd. Arif and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.