Madras High Court
K.Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD) No.12229 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.12229 of 2017
K.Subramanian ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Principal Secretary
Rural Development and
Local Administration Department
Secretariat, Chennai
2.The Director
Department of Rural Development
Panagal Maligai
Saidapet, Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.
27037/2017/J.E.2.1 dated 26.05.2017 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to grant the petitioner notional promotion
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12229 of 2017
as Assistant Director in the Department of Rural Development with effect from
the date on which his immediate junior Mr.M.Subramanian (Seniority Sl.No.
1745) was promoted to the said post along with attendant monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.05.2017, rejecting the
petitioner's request for grant of notional promotion as Assistant Director in the
Department of Rural Development with effect from the date on which his
immediate junior Mr.M.Subramanian, Seniority Sl.No.1745, was promoted to
the said post.
2. Under the impugned proceedings, the petitioner's
representation has been rejected, on the ground that his case cannot be
considered for promotion in the year 2000-2001 in view of Section 7(1)
Schedule XI Part A II (11) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Conditions
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Service) Act, 2016 and as per the said Section, if a Government Servant is
subjected to check period, he will not be considered for promotion during the
said period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that denial of
promotion citing check period is illegal pursuant to the orders passed by the
Full Bench of this Court and therefore, the reason for rejection of the
petitioner's representation is not proper.
4. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had earlier
given a representation on 17.04.2001 seeking a similar request, which has
been rejected by the second respondent, on 27.04.2001. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner chose not to prefer any appeal before the first respondent
in terms of Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.
The petitioner was not allowed to retire from service due to the pendency of
the charges against him. Finally, according to the petitioner, he was allowed
to retire from service on 07.02.2006. The petitioner did not also choose to file
the writ petition seeking for a similar relief immediately, after the date when
he was allowed to retire from service in the year 2006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The petitioner has given reasons in his affidavit for not having
filed the writ petition earlier. He has stated that he got superannuated on
30.11.2001 and even thereafter, some charges were pending against him and
his retirement benefits were not paid to him and during the interregnum
period, he was only paid with provisional pension. According to him, only
based on G.O.(D) No.88, Rural Development (E6(2)) Department, dated
07.02.2006, issued by the first respondent, he was discharged from the
charges pending against him and thereafter only, terminal benefits and full
pension were disbursed to him. According to him, because of getting pension
and other benefits belatedly, he found it difficult to manage his commitments
and he could not complete his commitments properly. According to him, only
under those circumstances, he was unable to pursue his claim for notional
promotion at that point of time. He also expressed his financial difficulty in
fighting with the Government to pursue his claim for notional promotion
before this Court.
6. Admittedly, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner to pursue his case for notional promotion, which pertains to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
year 2001. Even the reasons given by the petitioner for not filing this writ
petition on time are not satisfactory, as sufficient cause has not been shown.
The only reason given by the petitioner was that he was allowed to retire only
in the year 2006 through G.O.(D) No.88, Rural Development (E6(2))
Department, dated 07.02.2006. But, no reason whatsoever has been given by
him with regard to the delay from the year 2006 upto the date of filing of this
writ petition. The petitioner's representation was already rejected by the
second respondent in the year 2001 itself. No reason has been given as to
why the petitioner did not prefer any appeal as against the said order passed
in the year 2001. Rule 38 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
Rules enables the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if he is aggrieved by the order
of the second respondent, dated 27.04.2001, rejecting his earlier
representation, dated 17.04.2001. However, he had not preferred any appeal
challenging the rejection of his request by the second respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2023, passed
in W.A.(MD) No.1250 of 2020, in the case of The Principal Secretary to
Government and others vs. K.Senthil Vel in support of his contention that
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
despite the delay, this writ petition is maintainable and can be entertained by
this Court.
8. In the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Division Bench of
this Court, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner therein in
approaching the Court. Only under those circumstances, the said writ
petition was entertained. But, in the instant case, as observed earlier, no
sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in
filing this writ petition and as seen from the petitioner's own case, there is an
inordinate delay, as even according to him, he has given reasons only upto
2006. But, thereafter, no reasons have been given from 2006 to 2017 for the
delay in filing this writ petition.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
12.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and
Local Administration Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director,
Department of Rural Development,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
12.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
