Disposed

V.Raju, v. the Chairman

Madras HC1 Jul 2015WP/21826/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition in conformity with a recent separate order dated 22.6.2015 regarding batch writ appeals. The petitioner sought promotion as Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation through the Board's power of relaxation, placing him on par with those promoted de hors amendment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion via the Board's power of relaxation.

V.Raju, Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶7

W.P.No.21826 of 2013

¶8

V.Raju ... Petitioner
vs.

¶9

1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-1
2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Pochampalli Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
Dharmapuri ... Respondents

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 13.7.2013 with regard to promotion of the petitioner as Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II on par with his immediate junior, who was promoted as Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II, in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.43061/2002, W.P.No.39659/04, W.P.No.39660/04 batch, dated 16.12.2010.

¶11

For Petitioner .. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents .. Mr.Fakkir Mohideen COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.)

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II, in the light of the order passed by the learned Judge, setting aside an amendment to the Service Rules.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Fakkin Mohideen, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶15

The correctness of the order of the learned Judge, dated 16.12.2010, passed in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.43061 of 2002 etc., was questioned in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1571 of 2013 etc., batch. These writ appeals came to be disposed of by this Bench by an order dated 22.6.2015. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

¶16

"27. Therefore all the writ appeals are disposed of to the following effect:

¶17

(i) We hold B.P.No.17 dated 05.7.2013 as valid and the order of the learned Judge declaring the said Board proceeding to be bad is set aside.

¶18

(ii) However, B.P.No.17 cannot take retrospective effect from 04.4.1987, which is the date on which B.P.No.33 was issued administratively. This is due to the fact that though B.P.No.33 dated 04.4.1987 was followed by other proceedings such as B.P.No.31 dated 12.01.1988, B.P.No.5 dated 26.01.1994, B.P.No.15 dated 05.03.2002 and B.P.No.61 dated 05.11.2002, no amendment to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations were issued until the issue of B.P.No.17 dated 05.07.2003. Therefore, the attempt made in B.P.No.17 dated 05.07.2003 to give effect to the amendments issued therein from 04.4.1987, on the basis of the executive instructions, cannot be upheld. Hence, it is declared that B.P.No.17 dated 05.07.2003 will take only prospective effect from 05.7.2003.

¶19

(iii) In view of the fact that several persons came to be promoted either by orders of Court or by administrative orders, without reference to the prescription contained in the amendment issued on 05.7.2003, we do not wish to upset the promotions already made, as it may lead to another set of litigations. Therefore, promotions so far made, without reference to the amendment dated 05.07.2003, shall not be reversed.

¶20

(iv) There are persons who are similarly placed as those who have got promotions de hors the amendment dated 05.07.2003, on account of the orders issued by this Court both before and after the amendments were struck down by the learned Judge. Since these persons are in no way different from those who have approached Court and obtained orders,

¶21

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

¶22

their cases may also be considered in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred upon the Board under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Once this is done, these persons who have not been promoted due to the amendment so far, will also become placed on par with those who have been promoted do hors amendment."

¶23

In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of

¶24

on the same lines as indicated above. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-1
2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Pochampalli Electricity Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO Ltd.,
Dharmapuri
mp(co)
krd 14/7
W.P.No.21826 of 2013

¶26

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

V.Raju, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Raju, v. the Chairman

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

Mrs. Kothai Vs Mr. Magesh Janarthanan

Tamil Nadu Neethithurai Vs The Registrar General

S.Venkataraman Vs Union of India rep. by

G.Ramakrishnan, D.E.E.E., Vs The Chairman

K.Senthilkumar, D.E.C.E., Vs The Chairman

E.Jagan Vs the Chairman