Madras High Court
The Director Of Rural Development And vs N.Chithiraisekar on 5 August, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
WA(MD). No.915 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 05/08/2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
WA(MD). No.915 of 2018 and
WMP(MD) No.5964 of 2018
1.The Director of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
2.The District Collector
Thoothukudi District
Thoothukudi. ... Appellants
Vs
N.Chithiraisekar . ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 06.03.2018 in WP(MD) No.2338/2018.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD). No.915 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The first and 2nd respondents in the writ petition have filed the
present writ appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 06.03.2018 in WP(MD) No.2338/2018.
2. The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus questioning an order of the Director of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj Department at Chennai in proceedings No.
17054/2015/EE2 dated 23.11.2017 and to quash the same and direct the
respondents in the writ petition to include the writ petitioner's name in
the panel for the post of Assistant Engineer for the year 2014-15 on par
with his immediate juniors. The writ petitioner also sought for extension
of necessary benefits.
3. In order to facilitate easier understanding, the parties will be
referred in the same nomenclature as maintained in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The writ petitioner had been appointed as Junior Draughting
Officer on 23.02.2009. Under normal circumstances, if one had
completed five years of service, he would be eligible to be considered for
promotion. That would be on 23.02.2014. However, the writ petitioner
went on medical leave from 06.04.2010 till 15.09.2010, ie., for a total
period of 163 days. He also availed one day of earned leave. The
respondents in the writ petition, therefore, did not give him credit for that
period of absence and opined that he had not completed the statutory
period of five years as on 23.02.2014 and therefore, did not grant him the
subsequent promotion as Junior Engineer holding that he had not
completed five years of service as Overseer. That order had been
challenged by the writ petitioner.
5. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on Rule 9 of the
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Rules') and had observed that absence of a member of service
from duty in such service, whether on leave or on foreign service or on
deputation or for any other reason and whether his lien in a post borne on
the cadre of such service is suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fit, render him ineligible in his turn. The Rule states that if a member of
service is deputed to any other department or deputed to foreign service
or if there is a lien or even if his absent, he would not be ineligible, if the
turn comes to him for considering him for promotion. Placing reliance
on the said Rule, the learned Single Judge had granted the relief sought
by the writ petitioner.
6. However, the respondents in the writ petition aggrieved by the
said order. A ground has been taken that the petitioner had been on
medical leave, which, though sanctioned on loss of pay, was for a total
period of 164 days and also for one day of earned leave and therefore, the
probation period will have to be accordingly extended for that period of
164 days. It had been contended that Rule 9 of the Rules relied on by the
learned Single Judge would be applicable for the purpose of pension and
not for declaring probation or for further promotion.
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants also argued that since the writ petitioner was on leave for a
considerable period of time on loss of pay, the period of leave being 164
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
days and one additional day of earned leave should be taken into
consideration and the period of probation should be accordingly
extended.
8. However, an argument is also made on behalf of the writ
petitioner herein that such leave had been sanctioned by the District
Collector and therefore, there should not be a bar to declare the probation
or promotion to the writ petitioner.
9. One further fact which had been brought to our notice is that
after passing of the order by the learned single Judge, since the appellant
herein had not put into effect the said order, the writ petitioner had filed a
contempt petition in Cont,P,(MD) No.793/2018 and by proceedings in
NO.8882/2018/EE1.2 dated 11.07.2018, the first appellant/Director of
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department had promoted the
petitioner as Assistant Engineer by order dated 28.01.2018 on par with
his immediate juniors. It had been stated that however this promotion
was granted subject to the outcome of this writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the materials available on record.
11. The moot point which we will have to consider is whether the
period of absence of the petitioner on medical leave would be a bar for
grant of probation or for further promotion.
12. Rule 9 of the said Rules are extracted in entirety:
“9. Members absent from duty - The absence of a member
of a service from duty in such service, whether on leave, or on
foreign service or on deputation or for any other reason and
whether his lien in a post borne on the cadre of such service is
suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise fit, render him
ineligible in his turn.
(a) for re-appointment to a substantive or officiating
vacancy in the class, category, grade or post in which he may be a
probationer or an approved probationers;
(b) for promotion from a lower to higher category in such
service;”
13. The Rule is simple. It requires a plain reading. It does not
require any interpretation of the statements made. The Rule provides that
if a member of service actually goes on leave, that shall not, if he is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
otherwise fit, render him ineligible for promotion. The Rule thus clearly
provides that going on leave, which is also subsequently sanctioned,
would not act as a bar for a member of any service from being eligible to
be considered for promotion or for declaration of probation as and when
that contingency arises.
14 Clause 'b' of the said Rule specifically states that even if a
member of service goes on leave, he should be eligible for promotion
from lower to higher category in such service. The petitioner seeks this
relief. According to him, though he had been on leave, the cumulative
service, which he had put, crosses the period of five years and therefore,
he should have been considered for promotion.
15. In a communication by the first appellant herein to the District
Collector, dated 23.11.2017, the first appellant had, however, after
extracting the Rule, opined that the petitioner had not completed five
years of qualifying service in the cadre of overseer. That opinion, in our
considered view, is not correct. There cannot be a further interpretation
of the Rule. The Rule is very clear that even if a member of service is on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
leave, he would still be eligible for promotion from a lower to higher
category in such service. The learned Single Judge in his order had also
placed reliance on the said Rule and had allowed the writ petition. As on
date, the writ petitioner had also been granted necessary relief of
promotion. That order had been passed in the year 2018. We hold there
is no requirement to re-appraise that order after six years. We are clear
that the Rule works in favour of the writ petitioner. We do not therefore
find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
16. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the
learned Single Judge is upheld. No costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (J.S.N.P,,J.)
05.08.2024
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO
1.The Director of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
2.The District Collector
Thoothukudi District
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
RR
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
