SHEELAWANTI Vs. HVPNL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that no actual benefits were granted for back dated promotion but only notional benefits were granted to her husband.

(2.) Brief facts are that husband of the petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board on 7.3.1980. His services were terminated on 16.10.199 He challenged the same by filing a civil suit which was decreed on 21.4.1997 and his termination order was set aside and the respondents were directed to give all consequential benefits to him. Ultimately, that decree was maintained upto the Supreme Court. However, on the same charges, he was again charge sheeted and he challenged the same by way of CWP No.15771 of 2002 which was allowed on 25.8.2003 and that charge sheet was quashed. During this interregnum, services of number of employees junior to the husband of the petitioner were regularized. Ultimately, husband of the petitioner filed a civil suit claiming regularization from the date services of his juniors were regularized. That civil suit was dismissed on 5.2009. He filed first appeal but died during the pendency thereof. Ultimately that claim was allowed by the respondents during the pendency of RSA No.1315 of 2011 and in judgment dated 3.2014, it was held as follows :-

(3.) The only justification given for the refusal, by learned AAG Haryana, is that the husband of the petitioner had not actually worked on that post. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that as a result of the fault of the respondents, a person junior has been granted extra pay while a senior person has been declined the same benefit on the ground that she has not worked on the said post. The premise on which reliance is sought to be placed by the State is extremely one sided and self serving. In Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 2015 SC 2904, the Supreme Court held as follows :-