Madras High Court
K.Britto vs The Chairman on 29 August, 2023
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
K.Britto ... Petitioner in
WP.No.44605/2016
V.Natesan ... Petitioner in
WP.No.44606/2016
Vethapuri ... Petitioner in
WP.No.44607/2016
K.Nagarajan ... Petitioner in
WP.No.44608/2016
Versus
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... RR 1 & 2 in all
Writ Petitions
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
3.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Trichy Metro, Trichy. ... R3 in WP.No.44605/2016
4.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle
Mettur. ... R3 in WP.No.44606/2016
5.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle
Tiruvannamalai. ... R3 in WP.No.44607/2016
6.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle
Krishnagiri [P.O] District. ... R3 in WP.No.44608/2016
Common Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent made in Letter Nos.084993/699/G30/G301/2015-4,
084993/699/G30/G301/2015-3, 084993/699/G30/G301/2015-2 and
084993/667/G30/G301/2015-2 dated 02.05.2016 and quash the same and
consequently directing the respondents to grant notional promotion to the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer at par with their junior.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
For Petitioners in all
the Writ Petitions : Mr.R.Jaikumar
For Respondents in all
the Writ Petitions : Mr. K.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
(1) All the four petitioners stand on the same footing and they claim
parity seeking notional promotion to be granted as Assistant
Accounts Officer on par with their junior P.Chellan and since their
request for the same was rejected, have filed the present writ petitions
independently in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking
interference with an order of the 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer /
Personnel, TANGEDCO at Chennai, who had rejected granting
notional promotion to the petitioners herein.
(2) Since arguments were also advanced in common and since the
respondents have also taken the same stand to refute the claim of the
petitioners herein, a common order is passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
(3) Let me take as an illustration, the facts in WP.No.44605/2016
[K.Britto Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, Chennai and 2 Others].
The petitioner in WP.No.44605/2016 had joined Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board as temporary Casual Labour on 26.11.1970 and was
regularised as Supernumerary Helper with effect from 01.01.1977.
He was then promoted to successive positions and finally, as
Accounts Supervisor on 06.01.2007. The other petitioners in the
other three writ petitions have also been similarly promoted on
various dates as Accounts Supervisors. All the petitioners were
eligible to be promoted as Assistant Accounts Officers. They had
also qualified in Accountancy Senior Test which was a pre-requisite
to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. A panel had been prepared
for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and that
particular panel has been filed as a document before this Court and a
perusal of the same shows that the petitioner in WP.No.44605/2016 –
K.Britto was in Serial No.57 with Seniority No.867. The petitioner
V.Natesan in WP.No.44606/2016 was in Serial No.90 with Seniority
No.932. The petitioner Vethapuri in WP.No.44607/2016 was in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
Serial No.108 with Seniority No.986 and the petitioner K.Nagarajan,
in WP.No.44608/2016 was in Serial No.177 with Seniority No.1186.
(4) There is no dispute raised about this particular panel prepared by the
respondents. However, owing to various intervening circumstances,
another panel was prepared and P.Chellan was included only in that
Supplementary Panel in Serial No.216 with Seniority No.1262. This
was prepared in continuation of the earlier panel since, it had been
stated that the names of the individuals in the Supplementary Panel
had also qualified in the said Accounts examination. It is not a
separate panel as such, but a continuation of the earlier panel. The
seniority therefore, remained as it was. The petitioners were certainly
senior to P.Chellan. The entire list of panel and the Supplementary
panel were kept in abeyance consequent to the Lok Sabha Elections
in the year 2009 and the coming into force of the Code of Conduct.
Thereafter, the respondents had put the panel into effect. By that
time, all the four petitioners and also P.Chellan had retired. P.Chellan
then filed WP.No.26673/2010. By an order dated 14.03.2012, a
learned Single Judge had examined the reason given by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
respondents who are the respondents herein also, that the panel or a
Supplementary panel could not be given effect consequent to the
intervening Lok Sabha Elections and the Code of Conduct which had
to be followed and by the time it could be given effect to, the
petitioner therein P.Chellan had retired.
(5) The learned Single Judge had however rejected that particular
argument and had held as follows:-
''10.The perusal of the Impugned Order dated
20.11.2010 also reveals that the petitioner does not
suffer from any disqualification and he has already
reached the zone of consideration for promotion to the
post of Assistant Accounts Officer. It is pertinent to
note that the perusal of the Impugned Order further
discloses that the supplementary panel was to be
prepared on 25.03.2008 and the process was kept lie
over due to Lok Sabha elections in the year 2009 as
code of Conduct. It is fairly submitted by the learned
Standing counsel for the respondents before this Court
that the panel was prepared on 15.05.2009 and the
petitioner's name was not considered only on the
ground of his retirement on 31.03.2009. I am of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
considered view that there is absolutely no legal
impediment to promote the petitioner as the panel for
promotion was prepared on 15.05.2009 and on that
crucial date, the petitioner was very much in service
and there is absolutely no justification to deny such
benefit to the petitioner inspite of the admitted fact that
the petitioner is fully qualified for such promotion.
11.In view of such sequence of events and the
admitted facts, this Court is of the considered view that
deprivation of the benefit of promotion to the petitioner
is wholly unjustifiable and the reason assigned for
rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated
30.04.2009, is untenable. The 2nd respondent ought to
have atleast considered the representation of the
petitioner dated 05.06.2009, which was given prior to
the passing of the Impugned Order dated 20.11.2010
and nothing prevented the 2nd respondent to consider
the said representation wherein the petitioner has
sought for the relief of notional promotion with
consequential monetary benefits. It is very unfortunate
to note that the said representation is not at all
referred in the Impugned Order dated 20.11.2010.
12.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court
has come to the irresistible conclusion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
Impugned Order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly,
the writ petition is allowed and the Impugned Order
passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.11.2010 vide
proceedings in Lr.No.100224/G30/G301/2008 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the 2nd respondent is
hereby directed to give notional promotion to the
petitioner and pay the consequential monetary benefits
with effect from 15.05.2009, the date on which the
panel was approved, with all other attendant benefits.
It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be
completed within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.''
(6) The reasons also apply to these petitioners herein. One of the main
grounds for rejecting the case of the petitioners herein is that
according to the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, the
petitioners are fence sitters who had not approached the Court earlier
and had awaited judgment delivered with respect to P.Chellan and
then had approached the Court. But, it is a right which had vested
with the petitioners herein consequent to them being included in the
panel for promotion and that right cannot be overlooked merely
because the petitioners had approached the Court a little later. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
also a fact that not everybody can approach the Court immediately
and there would be instances or various grounds that writ petition
would be filed a little later or a little earlier. But the fact is that the
petitioners had given their representations and those representations
had been rejected. The right which had accrued to P.Chellan which
was recognized by this Court after his retirement, naturally also
accrues to the petitioners herein also. The other order which was
relied on by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents namely,
the order of a learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2023 in
WP.No.36604/2016 [G.Jayauddin Vs. The Chairman, TANGEDCO,
Chennai and Another], would not be applicable to the case of the
petitioners herein since the petitioners were in service on 15.05.2009
as P.Chellan and therefore, that order is distinguishable. It is
therefore, clear that the petitioners should be granted necessary
notional promotion with effect from 15.05.2009 as similar to that of
P.Chellan. Necessary proceedings to be issued by the respondents
within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
(7) The writ petitions stand allowed and the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent dated 02.05.2016 are quashed. No costs.
29.08.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
To
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Trichy Metro, Trichy.
4.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle
Mettur.
5.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle
Tiruvannamalai.
6.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd
Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle
Krishnagiri [P.O] District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
WP.Nos.44605 to 44608/2016
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
