Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs T.Sundarrajan on 13 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2451 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.2451 of 2024 and
CMP No.17492 of 2024
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-09.
2. The Director/Principal Secretary,
Survey and Settlement Directorate,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.T.Sundarrajan
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside
the order dated 01.09.2023 made in W.P.No.17379 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ravindran, Addl.Adv.General
Assisted by Mrs.Yamunadevi,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. P.Ganesan for first respondent
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2451 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This intra court appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2023 in W.P.No.17379 of 2018.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner was originally appointed as
Steno-typist on 13.01.1984 on temporary basis and his services were
regularized from 25.06.1984. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on
29.09.1988 and further promoted as Superintendent on 03.06.2009 and he
retired from service on 30.04.2018. His grievance was that, when the
second respondent has drawn a seniority list on 24.03.2003, one
Ms.S.K.Fathima, who has promoted on 09.06.1989 as Assistant, (viz.,
subsequent to the date of petitioner's promotion as Assistant) was placed at
Sl.No.10, whereas, his name was placed at Sl.No.127. Hence, he made a
representation to fix his seniority based on his promotion on 29.09.1998 as
Assistant and it was rejected, vide order dated 11.05.2018, due to the
following reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. I am to state that based on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court
of Madras in the 15th cited (W.P.No.2429/2018, dated 05.02.2018), the
Government have examined the issue in detail on the rules prevailing in
force, on merits and in accordance with law and also with connected
records and based on the proposal of Commissioner of Survey and
settlement in R.C.No.R2/46552/2014(Sy), dated 09.05.2017, your request
was rejected due to the following reasons:-
i) orders were already issued in G.O.(Ms) No.93, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department dated 08.04.1994, in which it has
been ordered in para 8 that the Seniority of persons already appointed to
the posts of Assistants in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Judicial
Ministerial Service from the common category of Typist/Steno-typist due
for the period from 01.06.1988 to 01.08.1992 shall not also be disturbed"
and the orders are adhered.
ii) that you have not passed DOM and not completed survey
training on the crucial date (i.e. 15.3.1988) for the panel of Assistant for
the year 1988 and hence, you are not fully qualified. You have passed the
Department test only after the crucial date (on 01.06.1988). Hence, your
name was not considered for the panel of Assistant for the year 1988.
Therefore, your request for revision of seniority from the date of passing
the Department test on 01.06.1988 and further promotion to higher post
could not be considered."
Challenging the above order, the first respondent filed the writ petition.
3. After hearing both side and upon perusing the documents, the
learned Single Judge, has discussed the matter in detail and has passed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
following order.
" 9. Learned counsel states that since he had been promoted on
29.09.1998, which was between 1.06.1988 and 01.08.1992, as stated
above, the seniority of the petitioner should not be disturbed. But,
however, that promotion is only temporary. The petitioner is however
eligible for consideration with right to be promoted as Assistant in the
panel on 01.03.1989. He is entitled to that right, while the petitioner
has to be granted. Therefore, to that limited extent, the impugned order
is set aside and a direction is given to the respondents to consider the
promotion of the petitioner in the panel 01.03.1989 on notional basis
and examine as to where he would retire at the time of retirement, when
he attained the age of superannuation and consider that particular aspect
till the retirement as notionally, but grant necessary benefits with
respect to the pension, which the petitioner is drawing. "
Assailing the above said order, the government has preferred the present
appeal.
4. According to the appellants, Tmt.S.K.Fatima is senior to the
respondent/writ petitioner in the category of Assistant, since she had passed
all the pre-requisite qualifications viz., Department Tests and Survey
Training will in time, before the crucial date (15.03.1988) for drawal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
panel for the post of Assistant. But the respondent did not possess the said
qualification on the said crucial date and hence, his service cannot be given
retrospective notional promotion at this efflux of time by disturbing the
settled seniority.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that, in the instructions issued by the Director of Survey and Settlement in
his letter dated 23.11.1987, it was specifically mentioned that the Assistant
promotion granted under Rule 39(a) is purely temporary and should not
stake any claim for seniority based on such promotion. Therefore, the
petitioner does not deserve the right to claim seniority, based on his
temporary promotion as Assistant, in violation of the conditions stipulated
supra.
6. Though the appellants have raised the above said grounds in the
present appeal, we are not satisfied to entertain the writ appeal. The learned
Judge, after elaborate discussion has observed that, since the respondent
was promoted as Assistant only on temporary basis, he is entitled to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
promoted as Assistant for panel on 01.03.1989, i.e. after he passing the
DOM test in May 1988. Therefore, the appellant may not have any
grievance for inclusion of the respondent in the panel for promotion for the
post of Assistant from 01.03.1989. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has
directed the appellant to consider as to whether the respondent is entitled
for promotion in the panel on 01.03.1989 or subsequent dates till his
retirement and if so, directed to grant notional promotion alone, however,
directed to grant monetary benefits with respect to pension. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that, it is for the appellants to take
appropriate decision in the case of the respondent/writ petitioner, as per the
direction given by the learned Single Judge as stated supra and we find no
error to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court.
7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of by directing the
appellants to comply the order of the writ court, within twelve weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(D.K.K., A.CJ.) (P.B.B.J.)
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No 13.08.2024
mst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
