Madras High Court
G.Sundararajan vs The Commissioner on 5 June, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
WA No.2172 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WA No.2172 of 2022
G.Sundararajan : Appellant
Vs
The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai - 600 003 : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.30922/2019 dated 06-06-2022 and direct the respondent to
consider the promotion of the appellant as Typist from 13-12-2010 along
with service and monetary benefits.
For the Appellant :Mr.A.Muruganandam
For the Respondents :Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi,
Standing Counsel,
Chennai Corporation
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.2172 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order
of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.30922/2019 dated 06.06.2022 and to
direct the respondent to consider the promotion of the appellant as Typist
from 13-12-2010 along with service and monetary benefits.
2.Brief facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as Sweeper at the respondent
Corporation on 03.07.2008. Prior to his appointment, promotions were
given from the feeder category to the post of Typist by taking 01.10.2006 as
the crucial date by making amendment in the by-laws framed in this regard
by the Corporation Council. Subsequently, in the year 2009 once again bye-
laws got amended under which the amending provision made it clear that the
approved probationers from all lower categories can be promoted, but the
candidate should have completed two years of qualifying service. Again,
third time rule got amended during 2010 insisting two years of service in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
feeder category of Record Clerk. Thereafter, fourth time once again the Rule
got amended on 27.12.2013 under which all lower categories can be
considered subject to having completed two years qualifying service. Only
by virtue of this amendment, since the appellant had already completed two
years in the Sweeper post, which was also considered to be one of the feeder
categories, he has been given promotion to the post of Typist in 2014 and
then pursuant to proceedings dated 29.01.2015, he has been promoted as
Assistant in the year 2016. After getting promotion, the appellant has sought
for retrospective promotion to the post of Typist with effect from 2009 on
par with others as per the earlier amended Rules. The said request was
rejected by the Corporation by order dated 11.01.2018. Challenging the
same, the appellant has filed the instant writ petition. The writ Court, by
order dated 06.06.2022, has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the
appellant has filed the present intra court appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant
has sufficient qualification for promotion as Typist as per the Bye Law, he
has not been considered for promotion and further, the Corporation has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
delayed the promotion of the appellant as Typist for five years, which led to
loss of monetary and service benefits. This crucial aspect has not considered
by the learned Single Judge and therefore, he prays for setting aside the
order of writ court and allow the writ appeal.
4. Per contra, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Corporation submits that only as per the amendment to the Rule made
during 2013, the appellant became eligible for promotion and accordingly he
was promoted as Typist from the post of Sweeper in 2014 and then as
Assistant in the year 2016. He further submits that those amendments were
not challenged by the appellant before the respondent Corporation.
Therefore, the claim of the appellant that he must be given notional
promotion with effect from 13.12.2010 with service and monetary benefits is
unsustainable and seeks for dismissal of the writ appeal.
5. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned Single Judge has anxiously considered the said
submission of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant
has not challenged the earlier amendments and has only challenged he
impugned rejection order. As the earlier amendments have not been
questioned, the appellant cannot seek for any retrospective promotion based
on the amendment made either in the year 2009 or in 2010, under which the
appellant admittedly is not entitled or eligible to the post of Assistant.
7. By virtue of the amendment in the year 2013, the appellant became
eligible for promotion and accordingly he was promoted as Typist from the
post of Sweeper in 2014 and then as Assistant in the year 2016 in the
respondent Corporation and now he sought for the restrospecive promotion
with effect from 2010. The said submission cannot be accepted for the
reason that the appellant has not sought for promotion on the earlier
occasions either in year 2009 or in the year 2010 and he slept over the
matter for all these years and only after getting promotion in the year 2016,
pursuant to the fourth amendment of 2013, now he seeks for notional
promotion right from 2010, which he is not entitled to as he did not raise
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any voice for promotion during the earlier amendments both in the year
2009 and in the year 2010. Further, he has not challenged the earlier
amendments seeking for retrospective effect. On these grounds, we are not
inclined to accept the contention of the appellant. Hence, the order of the
writ court dated 06.06.2022 is perfectly valid. Consequently, the writ appeal
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[D.K.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
05.06.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mrn
To
The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai - 600 003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
(mrn)
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
