Disposed

A.Kannan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC21 Jul 2014WP/21152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge directed 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation for notional promotion as Chief Engineer within six weeks, directing pass orders on merits, disposing of writ without going into merits; petitioner had already superannuated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider representation for notional promotion and pass orders in six weeks.

A.Kannan Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.21152 of 2012

¶6

A.Kannan ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Engineer in-charge (Buildings) &
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department.
3. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 6. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2012 for promotion as Chief Engineer at par with his junior Jegadeesh Chandrababu, within a reasonable time.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan.
For Respondents : Mr.Roofus Abraham
Government Advocate
ORDER

¶10

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2012, for promotion as Chief Engineer at par with his junior Jegadeesh Chandrababu, within a reasonable time.

¶11

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

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that after graduation in B.E. (Civil), he was appointed as Assistant Engineer under Rule 10 (a)(1) in the year 1979 and he reported for duty on 25.10.1979. Thereafter, he applied to TNPSC based on the notice calling for application for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer for the year 1980 and got selected. Subsequently, his selection was cancelled. However, his service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was regularized from 25.10.1979. The petitioner's service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was fixed with reference to the date of regularisation from 25.10.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer by the orders of the Government by including his name in the panel for the year 1996-97. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Executive Engineer by including his name in the panel of the year 2005-06 and he joined the promotional post on 03.03.2006.

¶13

As per the existing seniority, the petitioner was eligible for promotion as Superintending Engineer in the panel for the year 2009-10. But his name was not considered for promotion for the year 2009-10 as well as 2010-11. The reason for non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel was also intimated to the petitioner by Government letters dated 08.09.2009 and 09.08.2010 respectively. The said orders have been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.26331 of 2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.12.2011, quashed the rejection orders and directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion as Superintending Engineer, PWD, in the panel for the year 2009-10, without altering the seniority.

¶14

Aggrieved over the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Government have filed W.A.No.1141 of 2012. But the said appeal was also dismissed on 18.06.2012 by a Division Bench of this Court. Assailing the same, the Government has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.20197 of 2012 and the same was also dismissed on 18.07.2012.

¶15

Immediately after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 18.07.2012 to the respondent to consider his name for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, by fixing his seniority between Sl.No.24 (S.Ganesa Marachan) and Sl.No.25 (Jegadish Chandrababu) in the panel of 2009-10 approved vide G.O.Ms.No.359 PW(A1)D dated 29.08.2009.

¶16

Infact, subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.359 PW(A1)D dated 29.08.2009, the Government had also approved the panel of Superintending Engineer fit for promotion as Chief Engineer for the year 2011-12 vide G.O.Ms.No.182 PW(A1)D dated 01.06.2011, wherein name of petitioner's junior was included. Hence, it is the further claim of the

¶17

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

¶18

petitioner that his name has to be considered for promotion as Chief Engineer at par with his junior who was already promoted on 08.11.2011. Though petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings or having any currency of punishment, his name was not considered for promotion as

¶19

Chief Engineer. The petitioner's junior Mr.Jegadeesh Chandrababu, was promoted as Chief Engineer on 08.11.2011. Hence, petitioner is also entitled to get promotion as Chief Engineer, from the date of his junior's promotion, notionally with service and monetary benefits. As the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2012, was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶20

Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though, the petitioner's name was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, subsequent to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.07.2012, his claim for promotion as Chief Engineer at par with his junior Mr.R.S.Jegadeesh Chandrababu, who was promoted on 18.11.2011, was not considered. In the meanwhile pending the disposal of writ petition, the petitioner attained superannuation on 31.01.2013. Thus, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prays to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2012, for promotion as Chief Engineer, notionally, at par with his junior Jegadeesh Chandrababu, within a reasonable time.

¶21

Considering the above submissions, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs, the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.07.2013 for notional promotion as Chief Engineer at par with his junior Jegadeesh Chandrababu and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 01.08.2014

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

ars
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Engineer in-charge (Buildings) &
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department.
3. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road, Chennai – 6.
1 CC to M/s. M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No. 32347
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 32367
W.P.No.21152 of 2012
UG (CO)
PSI (01.08.2014)

¶28

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

A.Kannan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kannan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Dr. Usha Devi

G. Malini W/O.R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v.Amulu

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Vs Tmt.Jeeva

A.Jammal Hussain Vs M.Kalasalingam @ Kanagalingam