Madras High Court
M.Mohan vs The Chairman on 5 December, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.1483 of 2020
M.Mohan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Internal Audit Officer,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent in his letter
NO.009985/61/G.301/2017-2 dated 21.04.2017 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer notionally on par with his juniors and to grant all
attendant and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Parameswari
Standing counsel for TNEB
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated
21.04.2017 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to promote
the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer notionally on par
with his juniors and to grant all attendant and monetary benefits, this Writ
Petition has been filed.
2.The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed as
Junior Assistant in the respondent Board on 25.10.1995 and subsequently
promoted as Assistant and Accounts Supervisor on 08.01.2007. His next
cadre of promotion is to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and as such a
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
panel was drawn in the year 2013-14 and in the said panel, upto S.No.188
was given promotion and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.197.
Subsequently in the year 2015-16, the Superintending Engineer forwarded
the name of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.
However, due to the intervening election and the election code of conduct,
the panel was not given effect to. In the interregnum, the petitioner attained
the age of superannuation on 30.04.2016 and he was allowed to retire from
service.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in an identical
situation in W.A. No.510 of 2013, this Court directed the respondents to
promote the similarly placed person notionally and since petitioner is also
standing in the same footing, the petitioner sent a representation. Since the
said representation was not considered the petitioner filed a writ petition
before this Court in W.P(MD) No.22364/2016, where a direction has been
given to the respondents to consider the petitioner for notional promotion in
the light of the judgment in W.A(MD) No.510 of 2013 dated 09.04.2013.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order stating that the
judgment in W.A.(MD) No.510/2013 is not applicable to the petitioner
herein and thereby rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence,
challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
judgment made in W.A(MD) No.510/2013 is squarely applicable to the
petitioner. It is submitted that the particulars were called for as early as on
06.02.2016 and the same were received by the respondents on 29.04.2016,
even before the retirement of the petitioner and hence, the rejection made by
the respondents is unsustainable in law and if the petitioner was promoted,
he would have occupied the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and he
would have been benefitted monetarily and hence, interference is warranted.
5. Per contra, by filing a counter affidavit, the learned standing
counsel for the respondents submitted that the panel to the post of Assistant
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
Accounts Officer was drawn fixing the crucial date as 25.03.2013.
Accordingly, a panel was prepared containing 239 Accounts Supervisors. In
the year 2015-16, report has been called for for 112 Accounts Supervisors
including the petitioner herein vide letter dated 06.02.2016, out of which,
for 83 persons particulars have been received and the same was placed
before the committee for promotion on 15.06.2016. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.04.2016
and hence, the name of the petitioner was not considered.
6. It is further submitted that one Chellan, who retired on
31.05.2009, has filed W.P.No.28673 of 2010, wherein this Court directed the
respondents to consider the petitioner therein notionally, as against the said
decision, the department has filed a writ appeal, wherein, a direction was
issued to give notional promotion to the petitioner therein. However, in the
case on hand, the petitioner is standing in a different footing. In that case,
the panel was prepared after the retirement of the petitioner therein fixing
the crucial date as 25.03.2009, however, the petitioner therein retired on
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
30.05.2009 and though his name was included in the list, since the
petitioner therein got retired, he was given notional promotion. However, in
the present case, after the petitioner retired, when the particulars were called
for and only for 83 persons, particulars and promotion were given and since
the petitioner was in Sl.No.112, he was not given promotion and hence, it
cannot be stated that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion
notionally. Accordingly, the respondents passed the detailed order and no
interference is warranted to the same.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the respondents.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2016 and
the drawal of panel and the particulars that have been called for. As such
the panel was prepared and the same was placed before the Committed on
15.06.2016. In the said panel 2015-16, the petitioner was placed at 112 and
83 Accounts Supervisors have been promoted as Assistant Accounts
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
Supervisors and hence the petitioner was not considered for promotion. and
hence, the grievance of the petitioner that if his name was considered for
promotion was given, he would have been benefitted monetarily cannot be
considered. Furthermore, it is not his case that there were vacancies and his
case was not considered. It is also not demonstrated that his juniors were
given promotion overlooking the petitioner's candidature and seniority.
Hence, the respondents have rightly turned down the request of the
petitioner and as such, no interference is warranted to the decision taken by
the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
05.12.2022
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
RR
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
RR
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Internal Audit Officer,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
W.P.(MD) No.1761 of 2020
05.12.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
