Dismissed

Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.Helen Cecil

Madras HC13 Mar 2014WA(MD)/388/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed writ appeals filed by the State against an order directing promotion of petitioners as Executive Engineers. The Court held that censure penalties have a one-year currency, as per a Full Bench decision, and thus the original order granting promotion was challenged successfully.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; original orders giving promotion to petitioners upheld.

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Helen Cecil — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶3

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.388 and 389 of 2014 against WP(MD)Nos.10011 and 10012 of 2009

¶4

1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat,

¶5

Chennai 600 009.

¶6

2.Engineer -in-Chief, WRO & Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Appellants in both W.As (Respondents in WP.Nos.10011 and 10012 of 2009)

¶7

Vs. P.Helen Cecil .. Respondent in W.A.No.388 of 2014 (Petitioner in WP(MD)No.10011/09)

¶8

M.Kalinga Raj .. Respondent in W.A.No.389 of 2014 (Petitioner in WP(MD)No.10012/09)

¶9

Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.11.2009 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.10011 and 10012 of 2009 on the file of this Court.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD)Nos.10011 and 10012 of 2009:-

¶11

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first Respondent, relating to G.O.(D) No.441, Public Works (A2) Department, dated 01.10.2009 quash the same to the limited extent of deferring the promotion of the Petitioner as Executive Engineer and consequently direct the first Respondent to issue suitable orders of promotion to the petitioner as Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits.

¶12

For Appellants : Mr.N.Manohar, Special Government Pleader.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravi

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.)

¶18

These writ appeals are filed by the State challenging an order passed by the learned Judge, in two writ petitions, directing the appellants to grant permission to the respondents herein to the post of Executive Engineer, without taking note of a punishment of censure.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶20

3.On the ground that the respondents suffered penalties of censure, they were overlooked for promotion. But the question as to whether a penalty of censure would have a currency of one year or not has come to be finally decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vs.V.Rani, (2011) 4 MLJ 1. Therefore, following the abovesaid decision, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar'

¶25

¶26

The Secretary to Government,Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Secretariat,

¶27

Chennai 600 009.

¶28

2.Engineer -in-Chief, WRO & Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk,

¶29

Chennai 600 005.

¶30

+One cc to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.16082 sms RL/4 c- 27/3/2014

¶31

Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.388 and 389 of 2014

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

13.03.2014

Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.Helen Cecil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Tamil Nadu v. P.Helen Cecil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Elementary Vs Valliammal

Indhumathi Devi, Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

G. Gopalakrishnan, Vs the Director of Town Panchayat

The Principal Secretary to Vs a. Chakravarthy

The Manager Vs Chandrakumar

P. Arunachalam Vs the District Collector