Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs T.S.Ramalingam on 10 August, 2021
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings) and
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department
PWD Campus, Chepauk
Chennai - 5 ... Appellants
Vs.
T.S.Ramalingam ...Respondent
****
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 21.09.2020 passed in W.P. No.33006 of
2013.
****
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Govt. Counsel
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
As no adverse order is going to be passed against the
respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
2. The writ appeal is preferred by the State against the
direction given by this court to include the name of the respondent,
who is the writ petitioner, in the panel of promotion, notionally for
the purpose of terminal and pensionary benefits.
2. The parties are not in contradiction with the facts of the
case. The writ petitioner was an Assistant Engineer with the
appellants from 23.07.1979 and retired from service on
28.02.2013. Before his retirement he was fully qualified to be
promoted as Superintending Engineer during the year 2012. As he
was not included in the panel of promotion list despite the existing
vacancies, the writ petition was filed.
3. Admittedly as per Rule 4(a) of the General Rules for the
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, the appellants prepare
a panel annually of the eligible candidates for promotion to the next
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
higher category. The crucial date for preparation of the panel for the
year 2012-2013 was 01.04.2012 and for the year 2011-2012 was
01.04.2011.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, for the year 2011-2012,
names of many persons, who were seniors to the writ petitioner and
who were to retire on or before October 2012, were added and
given promotion, subject to the estimated vacancies. The writ
petitioner should have been added in the panel for the year 2012-
2013 for which the crucial date was 01.04.2012. Admittedly, the
panel itself was drawn belatedly on 06.03.2013 only, which was
after the superannuation of the petitioner. Due to the extraordinary
delay on the part of the appellants, the petitioner was deprived of
his promotion.
5. Learned Government Pleader contended that the delay was
due to unavoidable reasons beyond their control and the same was
neither willful nor wanton. Secondly, the name of the
respondent/writ petitioner was not considered, as his turn did not
come up and the seniors to the petitioner were available. Further,
the petitioner has retired on 28.02.2013. Hence for the above
stated reasons, the respondent could not be added in the panel for
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
promotion for the year 2012-2013.
6. The learned single Judge had gone through the facts of the
case elaborately and found that the inordinate delay caused by the
appellants in preparing the panel, which had the cut-off date of
01.04.2012, only on 06.03.2013. When the cut-off date is already
known and the exercise is being repeated every year, the reasons
given by the appellants for the delay is unacceptable, especially
when the same deprives the much awaited prospects of the
candidates. The learned single Judge also found that there is no
plausible explanation for the said delay, which could take away the
rightful promotion of the writ petitioner.
7. It is argued by the learned Government Pleader that the
Panel of Executive Engineers for promotion as Superintending
Engineer for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 were approved strictly
in accordance with the seniority list and no junior to the respondent
was included in the panel for the year 2012-2013, overlooking the
seniority. However, it is not stated whether the petitioner was
eligible to be included in the panel or the reason for not including
him in the promotion list. The only reason assigned was that he had
attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013, whereas the
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
panel was approved on 06.03.2013. Hence the learned single Judge
also had found that there is absolutely no fault on the part of the
writ petitioner whose legitimate right was taken away.
8. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader
that in G.O. Ms. No.36 Public Works Department Dated 21.01.2013,
the Government had approved the estimated vacancies for the post
of Superintending Engineer during the year 2012-2013 as 38. In the
said panel, the writ petitioner's name was also included. However,
as the said petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
28.02.2013, he was not given promotion. If the panel was drawn on
the cut-off date, which was 1.4.2012, without any delay, the writ
petitioner would have become Superintending Engineer on the date
of his retirement. Excepting the above said contentions, there is no
other reason assigned for not including the name of the writ
petitioner, at least for the purpose of terminal and pensionary
benefits.
9. The writ court, therefore, rightly allowed the writ petition
directing the appellants herein to include the name of the writ
petitioner in the respective position as per the seniority and grant
him the notional promotion for the purpose of claiming terminal and
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
pensionary benefits, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. We see no reason to interfere in
the same and accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is
confirmed and the time is extended by three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10. With the above extension of three months time to comply
with the order of the writ court, the writ appeal is dismissed.
However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
10.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Asr
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings) and
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department
PWD Campus, Chepauk
Chennai - 5
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/7
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A.No.1100 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.6948 of 2021
Date : 10.08.2021
_______
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/7
