Madras High Court
K.Arumugam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 June, 2021
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
K.Arumugam ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Sericulture,
Salem – 636 001. ... Respondents
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Prayer: Petition filed to condone the delay of 705 days in filing the Writ
Appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 dated 15.09.2009.
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letter Patents Act, filed praying
to set aside the final order dated 15.09.2009 in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 passed by
the learned Single Judge.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.S.Balakrishnan for
Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Counsel
JUDGMENT
(delivered by MRS.PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,)
C.M.P.No.1 of 2011 is filed to condone the delay of 705 days in filing
the Appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 dated 15.09.2009.
2. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in the
Department of Industries and Commerce and later, he was transferred to the
Department of Sericulture in the year 1980. He was promoted as Assistant in
March 1981 and as Superintendent in May 1986 and his name was included in
the panel of Administrative Officer for the year 1994-95. He was also
promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on 05.04.1995. One
Smt.Kasthuri filed an application in OA.No.2132 of 1995 before the Tribunal,
questioning her reversion from the post of Administrative Officer. Earlier she
was promoted as Administrative Officer on temporary basis. The Tribunal
allowed the application in O.A No.2132 of 1995 and quashed the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
reversion dated 05.04.1995. Thereafter, she was promoted as Administrative
Officer on 26.07.1996. In turn, the appellant/writ petitioner was reverted and
posted as Superintendent on the same day. After Smt.Kasthuri retired, the writ
petitioner was promoted as Administrative Officer and he reached the age of
superannuation in the year 1999 and retired from service on 31.05.1999.
3. According to the appellant, his name should have been included in the
panel of the year 1998-1999 for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of
Sericulture, which was not done as the appellant had not completed two years
of probation in the post of Administrative Officer in the year 1997. The case
of the appellant is that had he been included in the panel for promotion, he
could have received pensionary benefits and other terminal benefits. Hence he
made a representation on 07.02.2001 to the first respondent to include his name
in the panel of Administrative Officer and consider for promotion to the post of
Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-1999. It was rejected on
04.01.2002 which was under challenge in the writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge found that when the appellant was under
probation, his name could not have been included in the panel for promotion
to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture. The period between which he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
was reverted to the post of Administrative Officer was taken into consideration
and by excluding the break-in-service, and he was allowed to retire as
Administrative Officer only.
5. It is not out of place to mention that when the appellant was reverted
from the post of Administrative Officer in the year 1996 and another person
was promoted as Administrative Officer, it was not challenged by the writ
petitioner immediately. The first representation was made by him only in the
year 2001, which is after eight years. Hence, the learned Single Judge has
rightly found that the appellant is guilty of laches and rightly dismissed the writ
petition.
6. Even this writ appeal is filed with a delay of 705 days, which is
almost two years later. The appellant must be 80 years of age now. He has
sought for only paper promotion to enhance his pensionary and other terminal
benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay much less admit
the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
7. There is also no sufficient cause shown in the affidavit filed in
support of the petition. Hence CMP No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently,
the writ appeal is dismissed at the SR stage itself. No costs.
(P.S.N.J.,) (K.R.J.,)
23.06.2021
sr
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
To:
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Sericulture,
Salem – 636 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J.,
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,
sr
W.A.SR.No.82281 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
