Dismissed¶40

Dr Shavinder Kaur v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2025CWP/7542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Duty of litigant to make complete disclosure in writ proceedings; petition dismissed at threshold for selective disclosure and missing links between prayer and pleadings; notional promotion versus monetisation of arrears; District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Haryana; certiorari and mandamus; suspension-period salary, ACP, deemed-date promotion; liberty to re-file. Keywords: complete disclosure, suppression of documents, notional promotion, arrears of salary, CWP-7542-2025, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action with better and complete particulars and disclosures. ¶40

Dr Shavinder Kaur Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action with better and complete particulars and disclosures.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) rejecting the petitioner's claim for arrears for the period 06.01.1998 to 01.02.2008 for the post of District Programme Officer (DPO) is liable to be quashed. +2 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie there is a missing link between the prayer and the petition: the notional promotion order dated 09.05.2022 was passed after CWP No.5339 of 2020 was filed but before its disposal, yet no amendment of that writ before 17.10.2023 is mentioned, so the claim for release of actual benefits did not arise therein; conversely, if the writ was amended, the order dated 09.05.2022 granting notional promotion appears not to have been challenged.

¶33

Key takeaways

It does not lie with a litigant to furnish only selective information and not make complete disclosure; the petitioner selectively chose to disclose information and append documents even though the prayers made in earlier proceedings were relevant to examining her claim, and such withholding leaves gaping holes and missing links impacting the final outcome.ratio¶33
The writ petition is dismissed at this stage for want of complete disclosures and documents.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.) — CWP-7542-2025, decided 22.04.2025: writ petition dismissed at the threshold for want of complete disclosures and documents. The petitioner, Dr. Shavinder Kaur, a regularly appointed CDPO (1985) who had been suspended (1992–1995) and stood exonerated after criminal proceedings (FIR No.104/1988, S.420 IPC; SLP (Crl.) No. 8241/2003 dismissed 26.09.2003) and departmental proceedings (exoneration order dated 17.11.2008), sought certiorari to quash the order dated 11.10.2024 rejecting her arrears claim (06.01.1998–01.02.2008) for the post of District Programme Officer and the word “notional” in the promotion order dated 09.05.2022, plus a mandamus for full salary with 12% interest and interest on delayed retiral dues. The Court found the petitioner had selectively disclosed earlier proceedings (CWP No.6083 of 2005; WP No.8373 of 2006; CWP No.5339 of 2020) leaving gaping holes, and noted a missing link: no amendment of CWP No.5339 of 2020 was shown before 17.10.2023, so the claim to actual benefits did not arise there, while the order dated 09.05.2022 otherwise appeared unchallenged. Holding that a litigant may not furnish only selective information, the Court dismissed the petition at this stage with liberty to file a fresh petition with better and complete particulars and disclosures.

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-7542-2025

¶3

Judgment Reserved on: 19.03.2025 Pronounced on: 22.04.2025

¶4

DR. SHAVINDER KAUR

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. Present: Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Women and Child Development Department, rejecting her claim for arrears for the period from 06.01.1998 to 01.02.2008 for the post of District Programme Officer (DPO). Additionally, the petitioner prays for the quashing of the term “notional” used in the promotion order dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), by which she was granted notional promotion to the post of DPO with effect from 06.01.1998. She further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release and pay the full salary for the aforementioned period along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as well as on the delayed payment of retiral dues.

¶13

The facts of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) on an ad-hoc basis vide order dated 07.12.1983 and was subsequently appointed on a regular basis through the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) on 11.03.1985. She

¶14

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.24 02:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP-7542-2025

¶17

was suspended by an order dated 26.06.1992, which was communicated to her on 02.07.1992 and was later reinstated into service on 19.05.1995.

¶18

An FIR No.104 dated 23.03.1988 was also registered against her under Section 420 of the IPC at Police Station Kalayat, District Jind. The petitioner was, however, discharged by the Trial Court on 21.03.1989. The State challenged this discharge through a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Kurukshetra, which allowed the revision on 17.07.1990. The petitioner’s challenge to this order, filed as CRR No.702/1990, was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court on 20.11.2002 against which the State of Haryana filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8241/2003, titled State of Haryana v. Suvinder Kaur @ Shavinder Kaur, but the same was dismissed on 26.09.2003.

¶19

Upon dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2003, the petitioner was also fully exonerated of all departmental charges and was also cleared of the same vide order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Sh. G. Prashana Kumar, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Haryana. The petitioner filed CWP No.6083 of 2005 for claiming the above relief (the details of the writ petition such as prayer made thereunder and even the order has not been appended). The above writ was disposed of on 12.04.2005 directing the respondents to pass a speaking order. In compliance thereto, an order dated 11.07.2005 was passed as per which the seniority of the petitioner was kept at Sr. No.17 below Kumari M.N. Saini and Kamlesh Gautam. The claim about promotion was however, deferred due to pending departmental proceedings. (Only the extract has been reproduced but order has not been attached).

¶20

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.24 02:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

-3-

¶22

CWP-7542-2025

¶23

It also transpires from the pleadings that another Writ Petition No.8373 of 2006 was also filed. (The petitioner has not disclosed about the prayer made in the writ petition or the averments contained therein or even the final outcome of the writ petition). Seemingly, in reply to Para No.12 thereof, it was informed that two charge sheets were pending under Rule 7 dated 05.09.1997 and 16.12.2003 and hence she was not found fit for being promoted and that a mere discharge in criminal proceedings is not sufficient.

¶24

It is submitted that she was discharged in the charge-sheet dated 05.09.1997 on 17.11.2008 (order not attached). There is no disclosure of the final outcome of the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2003 even though a reference is made that the said charge-sheet was also dropped.

¶25

An averment is made that another writ petition No.5339 of 2020 is stated to have been filed. (No details about the relief sought have been mentioned). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2023 (order not attached, only extract given), by recording concession of the State that in the event of any representation being submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be decided in 4 weeks.

¶26

A reference, without any contextual details, has also been given of an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, allowing notional promotion w.e.f. 06.1.1998 i.e. from the date her junior Kamlesh Gautam was promoted and that no arrears shall be paid. (The said contention is contrary to the pleaded case in Para No.9 where Kamlesh Gautam has been held senior to the petitioner and placed at Sr. No.17). (Further, the said order dated 11.07.2005 passed by the Commissioner & Principal Secretary has also not been disclosed to have ever been challenged

¶27

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.24 02:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

-4-

¶29

CWP-7542-2025

¶30

in any other proceedings).

¶31

The said order dated 09.05.2022 is now challenged in the present petition to the extent whereby the promotion has been given notionally only and actual benefits for the said period have been declined.

¶32

The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.10.2024 which is stated to have been passed pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in CWP No.5339 of 2020wherein prayer was solely for grant of salary for her period of suspension w.e.f. 02.07.1992 to 19.05.1995, for ACP and to pay arrear for being granted deemed date promotion for the period of 06.01.1998 to 01.12.2008.

¶33

Prima facie there appears to be missing link in the prayer and the petition. The specifically pleaded case of the petitioner is that she was granted notional promotion vide order dated 09.05.2022 i.e. after the Writ Petition No.5339 of 2020 had already been filed but before the Writ Petition being disposed of. There is, however, no mention of any amendment of the said Writ Petition before 17.10.2023, hence, there claim for release of actual benefits and notional promotion did not arise. If on the other hand, the writ was amended, the order dated 09.05.2022 granting notional promotion has seemingly not been challenged. The petitioner has selectively chosen to disclose information and append documents even though the prayers made in the earlier proceedings would be relevant for examining her claim in this round of litigation.

¶34

It does not lie with a litigant to furnish only selective information

¶35

and not make complete disclosure. The issue as regards its impact on the final relief to be awarded has to be left to the wisdom of the Court. Withholding of such documents, even if it is not ill-intentioned, leaves gaping holes and

¶36

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.24 02:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

-5-

¶38

CWP-7542-2025

¶39

missing links which impact the final outcome of the proceedings.

¶40

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed at this stage for want of complete disclosures and documents.

¶41

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action with better and complete particulars and disclosures.

¶42

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 22.04.2025. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶43

RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.24 02:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Women and Child Development Department, rejecting the petitioner's claim for arrears for the period 06.01.1998 to 01.02.2008 for the post of District Programme Officer (DPO); additionally challenged is the term “notional” in the promotion order dated 09.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) granting notional promotion as DPO w.e.f. 06.01.1998.¶12
Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Haryana, Women and Child Development Department · 11.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 07.12.1983 and regularly appointed through the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) on 11.03.1985.¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner suspended by order dated 26.06.1992 (communicated 02.07.1992) and reinstated into service on 19.05.1995.¶17
Prior proceeding
FIR No.104 dated 23.03.1988 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Kalayat, District Jind; petitioner discharged by Trial Court on 21.03.1989; State's revision allowed by Sessions Court, Kurukshetra on 17.07.1990; petitioner's CRR No.702/1990 allowed by the High Court on 20.11.2002.¶18
Prior proceeding
State of Haryana's Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8241/2003 against the High Court decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.09.2003.¶18
Prior proceeding
Upon dismissal of the SLP, petitioner fully exonerated of all departmental charges vide order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Sh. G. Prashana Kumar, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Haryana.¶19
Prior proceeding
CWP No.6083 of 2005 disposed of on 12.04.2005 directing respondents to pass a speaking order; consequent order dated 11.07.2005 kept petitioner's seniority at Sr. No.17 below Kumari M.N. Saini and Kamlesh Gautam, deferring the promotion claim due to pending departmental proceedings.¶19
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.8373 of 2006 filed; in reply to Para No.12 thereof the State informed that two charge sheets were pending under Rule 7 dated 05.09.1997 and 16.12.2003 and the petitioner was not found fit for promotion.¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioner discharged in the charge-sheet dated 05.09.1997 on 17.11.2008 (order not attached); final outcome of the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2003 not disclosed.¶24
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.5339 of 2020 disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2023 recording the State's concession that any representation submitted by the petitioner would be decided within 4 weeks.¶25
Prior proceeding
Order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, allowing notional promotion w.e.f. 06.01.1998 (the date junior Kamlesh Gautam was promoted) with no arrears payable.¶26
Prior proceeding
Prayer in CWP No.5339 of 2020 was solely for salary for the suspension period w.e.f. 02.07.1992 to 19.05.1995, for ACP, and arrear of deemed-date promotion for 06.01.1998 to 01.12.2008; the order dated 11.10.2024 was passed pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2023 in that writ.¶32

Dr Shavinder Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Shavinder Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaipal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dharampal etc. Vs State Ofhy.

Sunil Vs National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra and Ors.

Ramphal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Darshan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others