ANITA KADIAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pleadings on record would indicate that the petitioner had qualified her five years B.F.A. (Bachelor of Fine Arts) degree from Punjab University as a regular student in the year 1988. Petitioner joined the respondent/School Education Department, State of Haryana as a Drawing Teacher on regular basis w.e.f. 30.05.1998. Promotion from the post of Drawing Teacher is to the post of Lecturer in Fine Arts. Petitioner's case of promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of Fine Arts was considered but rejected by the respondent/department vide letter dated 30.01.2008. Aggrieved against the rejection of her claim for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Fine Arts), petitioner preferred CWP No.4539 of 2010 in this Court and which was allowed vide order and judgment dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-1). Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) with effect from the date her juniors had been so promoted. The judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.4539 of 2010 has since attained finality. In purported compliance of the directions of this Court, case of the petitioner for promotion was considered and vide order dated 23.07.2012, petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in Fine Arts w.e.f. 24.10.2007 i.e. the date her juniors had been so promoted. Copy of such promotion order dated 23.07.2012 has been placed on record and appended at Annexure P-2. Perusal thereof would reveal that the benefit of promotion has been granted along with notional pay fixation and seniority. However, the financial benefits have been confined to the petitioner from the date she joins as Lecturer in Fine Arts.

(2.) Against the afore noticed brief factual backdrop, the present petition has been filed raising a claim for grant of arrears with effect from the date the petitioner had been granted retrospective promotion.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that once the issue of eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of promotion to the higher post of Lecturer (School Cadre) had been settled in her favour by this Court, the petitioner has to be necessarily granted the consequential relief as well which would include arrears of salary. It has further been argued that the action of the State Government is arbitrary inasmuch as on the one hand an employee has been denied promotion and without any justifiable reason and the rights of such employee having been vindicated upon seeking judicial redress, salary for the period that such employee had been denied the promotional post cannot be withheld. In support of the claim and prayer made in the present petition, reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, UPSC and others, 2015(3) S.C.T. 606 : 2015 Supreme (SC) 753.