RANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) These are two separate civil writ petitions both under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and were filed by the same petitioner-Rani Devi, one bearing CWP No.17240-2020 (in short referred to as the first petition) and CWP No.24220-2015 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition). Since, both these writ petitions are inter-dependent and inextricably interwoven in such a manner and, therefore, to facilitate easy disposal as well as brevity, are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Undisputedly, the petitioner-Rani Devi had shown her date of birth as 06.10.1962 and was appointed as Head Constable on 11.09.1988/17.11.1988 under belt No.6930 and remained on list C-1 with effect from 05.07.1995 by virtue of office order dated 22.08.1995. The petitioner became officiating Head Constable on 08.10.2001 vide office order dated 09.10.2001 and was supposed to retire on 31.10.2020 afternoon on attaining the age of 58 years. By virtue of her hard work and dedication, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector under No.219/GGM when troubles started mounting upon her and she was ignored for being promoted to the post of Inspector. It was on 12.10.2020, the petitioner filed the first writ petition on the grounds that she had exhibited exemplary performance in sports/athletics and other competitions in the force and had put in hard efforts in the discharge of her official duties, as a consequence of which, she was commended on a number of occasions but due to her uprightness, had skirmishes and was denied her promotion to Head Constable forcing her to file a civil suit which was decreed in her favour on 09.11.1999 and even, this Court in RSA-3508-2000 vide orders dated 17.11.2003 has held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Head Constable with effect from 15.11.1995. It is claimed that the authorities failed to implement the Court orders and it was, thereafter, on 02.04.2005, was promoted with effect from 15.12.1995 and her seniority was fixed above Head Constable-Daya Kaur bearing No.796/GGM and below Head Constable-Shobha Rani bearing No.456/FBD. It is alleged that the respondents had been trying to scuttle her rise in the service and even her seniority was wrongly fixed and was shown to be below that of Daya Kaur and which was, thereafter, rectified vide order dated 01.06.2004/02.04.2005 and, thereafter, was deemed to be senior to Sumitra Devi bearing No.209/FBD and Kamla Devi bearing No.328/FBD. Because of this hard burning, the respondents illegally promoted Sumitra Devi and Kamla Devi who were junior to the petitioner and with great difficulty, she got her promotion as Additional SHO and during her posting at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram during 27.08.2014 to 18.02.2015 the Commissioner of Police awarded her commendation certificate on Republic Day i.e. 26.01.2015. The primary grouse of the petitioner that upon posting of one Sube Singh as SHO on 11.02.2015 at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, who happens to be in close proximity with the then Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, started devising ways and means to suppress the good work of the petitioner and who interfered in the working of the petitioner without any substantial cause and, thus, termed that because of this, she was tried to be sidelined and her promotions scuttled at the whims and fancies of these influential persons. It is claimed that the juniors of the petitioner, namely, Sunita Rani bearing No.442/GGM, Geeta Rani and Suman Kumar, were promoted as Inspectors on 29.07.2019, whereas, Seema Rani and Usha Rani were promoted on 31.03.2020. It is claimed that the respondents for a motivated cause devised a mechanism and without substantial cause, in spite of the fact her ACRs had 48 good entries and over single stray entry, that too at the fag end of her career, made in the year 2015, compulsory retired her with effect from 19.10.2020 instead of her superannuation, which was supposed to be on 31.10.2020 afternoon and, thus, challenged this conduct of the respondents claiming promotions, quashment of adverse entry and entitlement to monetary benefits.