Madras High Court
K.Namadevan vs The Secretary on 1 August, 2023
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
K.Namadevan
Line Inspector ... Appellant
Vs
1. The Secretary,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 11.12.2017 in W.P.No.31994 of 2017 and direct
the respondents to implement the B.P.No.223 dated 21.11.2009 clause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/6
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
13.4(VI) in so far as three promotions to the appellant and consequent to
give all attendant benefits.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Prem Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.David Sundar Singh
for TANGEDCO
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This writ appeal had been directed against the order passed in
W.P.No.31994 of 2017 dated 11.12.2017.
2. The appellant was the writ petitioner before the Writ Court, who
filed W.P.No.31994 of 2017, where he sought for a writ of mandamus
seeking a direction to the third respondent to implement B.P.No.223
dated 21.11.2009 clause 13.7 (VI) insofar as the three promotions to the
petitioner and consequently to give all attendant benefits.
3. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned single Judge
through the impugned order dated 11.12.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/6
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
4. Assailing the same, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that even though the appellant/petitioner retired
prior to Board Proceeding i.e., B.P.No.223 was issued even then he is
entitled to get such benefits and therefore, the delayed approach on the
part of the writ petitioner/appellant cannot be said as a reason as has been
stated by the learned single Judge, he contended.
5. Heard Mr.David Sundar Singh, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the TANGEDCO.
6. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioner/appellant is that on
31.05.2008, the petitioner/appellant retired from service and with regard
to the implementation of the new scheme, a Board Proceedings was
issued in B.P.No.223 dated 21.11.2009, where in a particular clause such
promotion based on length of service has been suggested.
7. However, insofar as the petitioner/appellant is concerned, he did
not ask for any such benefits, moreover, such a benefit accrued only on
the employees, who all are working. Hence, the Board Proceedings dated
21.11.2009 whether would apply to the petitioner/appellant, who
admittedly retired on 31.05.2008 is also a question.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/6
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
8. Taking note of all these aspects, the learned single Judge has
held that, first of all the employee, who retired on 31.05.2008 cannot seek
for any benefit, which has been subsequently accrued by issuance of
B.P.No.223 dated 21.11.2009.
9. Secondly, the learned Judge has held that after long years ( eight
years) i.e., after long slumber, the petitioner had approached, that is also
one of the reason the learned Judge says that the writ petition has to be
rejected.
10. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Judge,
where he has stated the following:
“4. When the petitioner has come to this Court seeking to
implement Board Proceeding No.223 dated 21.11.2009 clause
13-7(vi), counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not
even shown any proceedings, which has finalised all the three
promotions and given to regular employees. That apart, when
the petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2008, he is not
able to show as to how, the Board proceedings No.223 dated
21.11.2009 could be given with retrospective effect. Moreover,
after retirement on 31.05.2008, the petitioner has slept over for
the last nine long years and now, has come to this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/6
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
seeking the prayer mentioned supra. Further, the writ petition
also does not show whether at any point of time, from the years
2009 to 2012, he has given any representations to effect three
promotions. While concluding, learned counsel for the
petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Board
proceeding No.223 dated 22.11.2009, Regulation 10, namely,
Date of Effect and submitted that the revised pay scale shall
take effect from 1st December, 2009 and shall be in force for a
period of four years from 1st December, 2007, however, the
same does not speak about the three promotions to any one.”
11. The said approach of the learned single Judge cannot be found
fault with therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the
learned single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. No
costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
01.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/6
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
To
1. The Secretary,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO/TNEB,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Kancheepuram.
Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2018
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/6
