Usha Rani vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 November, 2018
10. To sum up, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended
that the claim of the petitioner is to the extent that her second ACP had
become on 20.4.2010 and the same has not been sanctioned to her and
consequential benefits have not been granted to her. The respondents
cannot refuse the same simply on the ground that the petitioner had
refused the promotion on a subsequent date, i.e. 25.6.2013. The second
relief sought by the petitioner is that she had sought voluntary retirement
only and not tendered resignation and the resignation submitted by her
was under compelling circumstances only and on that account, her retiral
benefits cannot be denied to her. To support his arguments, learned senior
counsel has placed reliance on Punjab National Bank and others vs.
Virender Singh Siwach--LPA No.735 of 2012, decided on 09.10.2015;
Om Parkash vs. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to
Govt. of Haryana and another, 2007(2) S.C.T. 422; Gulab Singh vs. The
State of Haryana and another, 2010(4) S.C.T. 145; Haryana State
through Collector, District Bhiwani, Bhiwani vs. Madan Pal Ahlawat,
2003 (1) S.C.T. 327; Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. Oriental Bank of
Commerce, 2003(3) S.C.T. 764.