[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
A.Selvam Anandaraj vs / on 24 February, 2026
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
A.Selvam Anandaraj,
Upper Division Clerk (Retired)
Puducherry Municipality,
No.4, Drowbathi Street,
Kennendy Garden, Sami Pillaithottam,
Lawspet, Puducherry-8. ... Petitioner in WP.2902/2018
V.Kuppusamy,
Upper Division Clerk (Retired)
Puducherry Municipality,
No.19/A, Antoniar Koil Street,
Muthialpet, Puducherry-3 ... Petitioner in WP.29916/2018
/vs/
1) The Commissioner,
Puducherry Municipality,
Puducherry 605 001.
2) The Director,
Local Administration Department,
Puducherry 605 001. ... Respondents in both WPs.
Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote notionally the
petitioners to the post of Assistant with effect from 22.12.2006. The date on
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
which the Octrori Barrier Operators were promoted and to pass such further or
other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
In both WPs.,
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.M.Nirmalkumar,
Government Advocate (Pondicherry)
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct
the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioners to the post of
Assistant with effect from 22.12.2006 from the date on which Octroi Barrier
Operators were promoted.
2.Heard Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr.M.Nirmalkumar, learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioners who were joined as clerks on a daily wages basis with
effect from 16.03.1987 have been absorbed into the regular establishment in the
post of junior assistant on 20.04.1990. The petitioners were given with an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme in view of the delay
caused for getting the promotion to the next level. The petitioners were given with
an actual promotion in the post of senior assistant with effect from 22.12.2006.
4. As the petitioners were already granted with the financial upgradation,
they were not given with any monetary benefit during their actual promotion. In
the year 2007, the posts of junior assistant and senior assistant were re-designated
as Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk respectively. 18 new posts of
assistant [Group-B-Selection post] were also created, but they were not filled up.
No recruitment rules for filling up the above posts were also published. The 1st
respondent published the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks on 28.10.2010.
5. In the meanwhile, the persons working as 'Octroi Barrier Operators' were
rendered surplus in view of the abolition of Octroi in the Union Territory of
Puducherry. As they have been deployed and accommodated in the post of Lower
Division Clerk, a revised seniority list was published on 07.11.2014, and
thereafter the respondents filled up 18 vacant posts by promoting Octroi Barrier
Operators, and they were given with a retrospective promotion to the post of
Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner in W.P.No.2902/2018 retired from service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
on 31.07.2015, and the petitioner in WP.No.29916/2018 retired from service on
31.10.2014. The failure to initiate timely action to consider the petitioners
promotion has affected them adversely. On 20.12.2006, when retrospective
promotions were given to Octroi Barrier Operators, the petitioners were in
constructive service, but they were not considered for promotion.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners have been promoted to the post of senior assistant
only on an adhoc basis with effect from 22.12.2006. Both the petitioners were not
entitled to grant the Assured Career Progression Scheme for further fixation of
pay and on promotion to the senior assistant on the revised scale of pay on par
with the other senior assistants. Because they did not pass the required
departmental test. They failed to complete the departmental test till their
retirement. Hence they were not considered for further grant of ACP or promotion
to any higher post in Pondicherry Municipality.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry) for the respondents
further submitted that with regard to 18 posts created at the assistant level, for
which the method of filing up of those posts, the rules of recruitment have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
framed according to which 60% are by promotion, failing which by Limited
Departmental Competitive Examinations and failing both by direct recruitment;
20% are by Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, failing which by
promotion, and failing both by direct recruitment; and 20% are by direct
recruitment through open competition.
8. The panel containing 23 eligible candidates was placed before the
Departmental Promotion Committee, which was duly constituted on 20.07.2016
for selection to the post of Assistant. After due scrutiny, the Departmental
Promotion Committee recommended 22 candidates for promotion based on merit.
As the petitioners had already retired, they did not come within the ambit of
selection.
9. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the promotions were not
done in a fixed time limit and that had caused the loss of promotional avenues to
the petitioners. The petitioners were promoted in the year 2016 to the post of
senior assistant. Before that they were given with the upgradation pay. So for as
the next level promotion that was open to the petitioners, it was to the post of
assistants. The 18 posts that had been created in the cadre of assistants were not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
filled up at the time when the petitioners were in service.
10. For the reasons best known to the respondents, there was a delay in
recruiting/promoting persons to the post of assistants. Just because any policy
decision is taken at a later point of time to expedite the promotion or to do
recruitment after a person retires from service, the retired person cannot claim that
they would have been given with the promotion if timely action is taken and
hence the benefit should be given to them with retrospective effect.
11. Time and again the position of law on this aspect has been reiterated
that no one can claim promotion as a matter of right, though it is an indispensable
post if any ones career. If the promotions were given as and when due it could
have been appreciated. For the reasons best known to the respondents, promotions
are withheld for a very long time, and during this period, a person who attained
the age of superannuation got retired from service.
12. The entire exercise cannot be done once again by presuming that the
retired persons are still in service. The petitioners have approached the Court after
their retirement and that too after 18 years. The petitioners did not have any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
explanation for justifying the delay and latches on their part. No fancy claim for
promotion subsequent to retirement can be considered unless for any extraneous
reasons.
13. The delay in giving promotion to the post of assistant not only affected
the petitioners but also persons similar to them who had been in service during the
relevant point of time. Even the petitioners had required to what was given or
denied to them while they were in service. Matters which had been given a go-by
if opened all of a sudden unmindful of the impractical and endless consequences,
will create complex situations which may be worse than the issue at hand. The
petitioners could not justify the delay and latches which directly hit their case.
In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
24.02.2025
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral: Yes/No
Speaking: Non Speaking order
jrs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
WP.Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs
To
1) The Commissioner,
Puducherry Municipality,
Puducherry 605 001.
2) The Director,
Local Administration Department,
Puducherry 605 001.
W.P Nos.2902 & 29916 of 2018
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 01:23:57 pm )
