Dismissed¶4

Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CWP/12980/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deemed promotion from juniors' promotion date (12.05.1995) with pay re-fixation and pension revision sought by retired petitioner (superannuated 2013); writ petition dismissed for unexplained delay of about three decades and claim raised about twelve years after superannuation; Parveen Bala (CWP-4172-2015, order dated 03.03.2020) distinguished on facts; no entitlement to parity with another employee's relief.

What did the court decide?

The petition is barred by unexplained delay of about three decades: the petitioner joined service on ad hoc basis on 17.09.1980, was subsequently regularised as well as promoted on 18.07.1998 and superannuated in 2013, but never claimed the deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.05.1995 during service and cannot be allowed to do so at this stage, about twelve years after superannuation. ¶3

Usha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant her a deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.05.1995, i.e., the date her juniors were promoted, together with re-fixation of pay and revision of pension. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Reliance on the Parveen Bala order (CWP-4172-2015, dated 03.03.2020) is misplaced as it is on different facts: the benefit of stepping-up of pay therein had been given by the Department on its own, delay in filing was not an issue in that case, and the mere fact that some other employee had been granted the relief would not entitle the petitioner to claim parity and seek the same benefit.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-12980-2025, decided 07.05.2025 (Tribhuvan Dahiya J., oral): Petition by Usha Rani, who superannuated in 2013, seeking a writ of mandamus for a deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.05.1995 (the date her juniors were promoted), re-fixation of pay and revision of pension, dismissed. The petitioner joined service on ad hoc basis on 17.09.1980, was regularised and promoted on 18.07.1998, never claimed the deemed promotion during service, and cannot be allowed to claim it about twelve years after superannuation; the petition was filed after an unexplained delay of about three decades. Reliance on Parveen Bala v. State of Haryana (CWP-4172-2015, order dated 03.03.2020) was held misplaced as being on different facts — the stepping-up of pay there had been granted by the Department on its own and delay was not an issue; relief granted to another employee does not confer a right of parity.

¶1

CWP-12980-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

135 CWP-12980-2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025

¶5

Usha Rani …Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another …Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶9

Present:Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

¶11

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner a deemed date of promotion to the petitioner with effect from 12.05.1995, i.e., from the date her juniors have been promoted, and to re-fix the pay and revise the pension.

¶12

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner superannuated from service in 2013 and is entitled to claim promotion from the date her juniors were promoted in terms of settled proposition of law to that effect. He has also referred to the judgment, dated 03.03.2020, passed in CWP-4172-2015 titled Parveen Bala v. State of Haryana and others , whereby the pay of similarly situated employee was stepped-up at par with that of her junior, and the petitioner therein was held entitled to the consequential arrears with interest.

¶13

Apparently, the petition has been filed after unexplained delay of about three decades. The petitioner joined service on adhoc basis on 17.09.1980 and was subsequently regularised as well as promoted on 18.07.1998. She

¶14

PAYAL 2025.05.13 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶15

CWP-12980-2025 -2-

¶16

superannuated therefrom in 2013, however during service she never claimed deemed date of promotion with effect from 12.05.1995, and cannot be allowed to do so at this stage after about twelve years of superannuation. Reliance upon the order dated 03.03.2020, passed in Parveen Bala case ( supra ) is also misplaced, as it is on different facts; the petitioner therein had been given the benefit of stepping-up of pay by the Department on its own. Delay in filing the case was not an issue. Besides, only because some other employee had been granted the relief, it would not entitle the petitioner to claim parity and seek the same benefit.

¶17

In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed.

¶18

		(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE
07.05.2025
Payal
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶19

PAYAL 2025.05.13 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Rani v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs Punjab Health System Corporation

Ch Mohd Yasin Khan Meo Senior Secondary School and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kanhi Ram Vs St of Hy

Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky Vs Union of India and Other

Shiv Narain Sharma and Ors. Vs St of Haryana and Ors.

Pardeep Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others