1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3118   OF 2008

SHAKUNTALA                               Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                  Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3155   OF 2008

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4842   OF  2010

   (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4190/2007)

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3118/2008:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It  has  not  been  disputed  before  us  that  the  

appellant herein Smt. Shakuntala has been promoted to the  

post of Inspector with effect from 18.3.2008. However,  

learned counsel for the appellant contended before us  

that even though the appellant has been promoted  with  

effect  from  18.3.2008,  but  in  fact  she  was  already  

promoted on 21.5.2004 and subsequently she was reverted  

to  the  post  of  Sub  Inspector  on  some  non-existent  

grounds.

2

We have been given to understand that the State  

Government  had  issued  a  show  cause  notice  to  the  

appellant which was replied to by the appellant but the  

objections  which  were  raised  by  her  have  not  been  

considered by the State in proper perspective and have  

been rejected in a slipshod manner.   

Since substantial relief has already been granted  

to  the  appellant  during  the  pendency  of  the  present  

appeal, we do not deem it fit and proper to decide this  

appeal on merits. But we are of the opinion that the  

interest of the appellant has to be safeguarded, that is  

to say, as to from what date she would be entitled for  

promotion on the post of Inspector.  

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that  

since the appellant was already promoted to the post of  

Inspector  with  effect  from  21.5.2004,  there  was  no  

occasion for the respondent-State to have her reverted  

and  then  subsequently  consider  her  for  promotion  and  

finally promote her to the post of Inspector  with effect  

from 18.3.2008. The learned counsel for the respondent  

State on the other hand submitted that for the reasons  

recorded in the various orders, the aforesaid step was  

taken by the State.

3

At this stage, we are not required to decide the  

said issue but we keep it open to be decided afresh by  

the respondents.  In this view of the matter, we grant  

liberty to the appellant to file fresh representation  

before the respondent State bringing all facts to its  

notice, within  a period  of 15  days hereof.   On  such  

representation being received by the respondent State,  

the  same  shall  be  considered  afresh  on  merits  in  

accordance with law within a period of three months from  

the  date  of  its  receipt,  under  intimation  to  the  

appellant.

We  may,  however,  clarify  that  any  order  passed  

prior hereto would not come in the way of the appellant  

for considering her case on merits and the respondents  

authorities would not be impressed by any observation  

made by the High Court against the appellant.   

It is further clarified that in case it is found  

that some other persons are likely to be affected by the  

order granting promotion to the appellant from an earlier  

date, then they would also be heard by the respondent  

State.  

With the aforesaid observation and direction this

4

appeal  stands  disposed  of.  Parties  to  bear  their  

respective costs.    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3155/2008:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent State informed  

us that the case of the appellant could not be considered  

for promotion to the post of Inspector since a case filed  

against her under the provisions of the Prevention of  

Corruption  Act  was  pending.  The  State  has  filed  a  

cancellation report on the strength of which the criminal  

case has been dropped and the cancellation report filed  

by the respondent State has been accepted on 8.3.2010.  

However,  we  have  been  given  to  understand  that  

against  this  order,  the  complainant  has  preferred  a  

criminal revision which is pending disposal on merits  

before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh.  

Be that as it may, we direct the respondent State  

to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to  

the post of Inspector within a period of three months  

from the date of communication of this order, which would  

be  subject  to  the  ultimate  result  of  the  criminal

5

revision filed by the complainant. With the aforesaid  

direction, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to  

costs.       

S.L.P.(C) NO. 4190/2007:

Leave granted.

The  appellants  in  this  appeal  are  claiming  

promotion to the post of Inspector.  During the pendency  

of the matter before this Court, all the appellants have  

been  promoted  to  the  post  of  Inspector  on  different  

dates.  This  statement  has  been  made  by  the  learned  

counsel for the respondent State and there is no reason  

to doubt the correctness thereof.  Therefore, this appeal  

for all practical purposes has been rendered infructuous  

and it is hereby disposed of as such.  

However,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  

submitted that an application for directions has been  

filed by appellant No.3 – Savitri Devi claiming some more  

reliefs as she was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector  

whereas other similarly situated persons were promoted to  

the  post  of  Inspector  from  an  earlier  date.  If  the  

appellant No.3 has any grievance, she would be at liberty  

to file appropriate representation with the State which  

may  be  considered  on  merits,  under  intimation  to

6

appellant No.3. The application for direction is disposed  

of accordingly.   

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

.....................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

New Delhi; June 9, 2010.