Madras High Court
P.Balasubramanian vs The Chairman on 16 October, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.(MD)No.19915 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.(MD)No.19915 of 2022
and WMP (MD) No.14507 of 2022u
P.Balasubramanian : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Madurai.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Dindigul.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Coimbatore Electricity Distribution
Circle (South),
TANGEDCO, Coimbatore.
5.The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.(MD)No.19915 of 2022
6. The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Coimbatore.
7.P.Murugesan : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the 4th respondent in
Ku.Aa.No.002589/323/Nee.Pi-2(3)/ Koo.Vazhakku.Pa.Voo.E/2022 dated
22.07.2022 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent in Ka.No.
002589/323/Nee.Pi-2(3)/Koo.Vazhakku.Pa.Voo.E/2022-1 dated
29.07.2022 to the 5th respondent de-promoting the petitioner from the
post of senior Driver to Driver with effect from 28.09.1998 and to refix
the seniority accordingly, to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Standing Counsel for R1 to R6
Mr.K.Anandan for R7
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the orders
passed by the fourth respondent dated 22.07.2022 and the consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order dated 29.07.2022, de-promoting the petitioner from the post of
senior Driver to Driver with effect from 28.09.1998 and to refix his
seniority.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
earlier, the seventh respondent had filed W.P. (MD) No.5969 of 2012
before this Court challenging the promotion given to the petitioner herein
and this Court had set aside the impugned order therein vide its order
dated 03.02.2012 and remitted back the matter to the authorities to
rework the entire issue and to refix the seniority of both the petitioner
and the seventh respondent, as per the regulations of the Tamil Nadu
Electricty Board after affording them an opportunity of personal hearing.
The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“11. For the reasons above stated, the
order impugned in the present writ petition is
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
authorities to rework the entire issue and refix
the seniority of the drivers as per the
Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, in the appropriate place including
petitioner, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, sixth respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
other affected persons. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. ”
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 03.02.2021, since the
aforesaid exercise has not been completed, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal in W.A. (MD) No.2104 of 2021 and this Court, by its judgment
dated 22.11.2021, directed the petitioner and the seventh respondent to
appear before the authorities and explain their respective cases for the
early fixation of their seniority. The relevant paragraph is extracted
hereunder:-
“2. Therefore, it is only the relevant
number of years at the relevant point of time,
which has to be taken into consideration. Since
the dispute is with respect to the number of
years of experience computed for the purpose
of promotion, the learned single Judge has set
aside the order and remitted the matter back to
the authorities, to re-work the entire issue, in
the process of fixing seniority of the drivers, as
per the Regulations of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Electricity Board and fix the seniority of the
writ petitioner as well as the 6th respondent,
who is the appellant herein, after affording
them an opportunity of personal hearing for
establishing their right.”
4.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
grievance of the petitioner is that even though there was no specific
direction of this Court to de-promote the petitioner from Senior Driver to
Driver, the fourth respondent had passed the impugned order de-
promoting the petitioner as Driver with effect from 28.09.1998. Even
assuming that the petitioner is de-promoted as Driver with effect from
28.09.1998, subsequently, he ought to have been promoted as Senior
Driver with effect from 28.08.2002. Therefore, the impugned orders
passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside.
5. In addition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a
representation on 27.12.2021, however, without considering the
representation and providing the opportunity of personal hearing, the
fourth respondent had passed the impugned order dated 29.07.2022,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. In response to the aforesaid submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that necessary
opportunity of personal hearing would be afforded to the petitioner and
that the petitioner and the seventh respondent may attend the hearing on
the dates that would be fixed by the respondents.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and also taking into consideration
the denial of providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
and the seventh respondent, the proceeding passed by the fourth
respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent for fresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration based on the representation of the petitioner dated
27.12.2021 by affording opportunity of personal hearing to both the
parties.
9. The notice of hearing must be sent to the petitioner as well
as the seventh respondent mentioning the date of hearing and time by
way of registered post with acknowledgment due card and appropriate
orders to be passed on merits and by following the rules and regulations
in vogue.
10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
16.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Madurai.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Dindigul.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Coimbatore Electricity Distribution
Circle (South),
TANGEDCO, Coimbatore.
5.The Superintending Engineer,
Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO, Madurai.
6. The Chief Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
PKN
W.P.(MD) No.19915 of
16.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
