Allowed

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Jun 2015WP/960/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reversal of seniority and promotion for a compassionate appointee delayed in regularisation and training. The Court held the employee was not at fault for the Government's delay and directed revision of seniority and promotion on a notional basis.

What did the court decide?

Direction to revise petitioner's seniority as Assistant and promote him to Superintendent on a notional basis from the dates his juniors were promoted.

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna Vs The Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.960 of 2015

¶6

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education (G2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

¶9

2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai -6.

¶10

3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education (Adm.) College Road, Chennai -6. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant from the date the junior got promoted, w.e.f. 24.06.2005 as Assistant with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani

¶13

Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan

¶14

For Respondents : Ms.M.E.Rani Selvam

¶15

Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶16

The father of the petitioner was serving as Lecturer in History at Arignar Anna Government Arts College at Rasipuram. He died on 04.09.1997 while in service.

¶17

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in the said college. Though proposals were sent to Government for approving the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, there was a delay in approving the proposal. The Government issued GO 3D No.32 Higher Education dated 09.01.2008 regularising the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant after taking concurrence from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and regularisation took effect from 01.06.2001.

¶18

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

¶19

After the aforesaid Government Order regularising the service of the petitioner, he was sent for training at Bhavani Sagar Government Institute during the period from 29.05.2008 to 08.07.2008. Since there was a delay in issuing the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner was belatedly sent for Bhavanisagar training. But juniors to the petitioners were sent for Bhavanisagar training at earlier instances.

¶20

According to the petitioner, after his successful training at Bhavanisagar Institute, his probation was declared by the Government in G.O.(D)No.3 Higher Education Department, dated 12.01.2009.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been notionally promoted as Assistant from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted as Assistant and also he should have been included in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 2013-14 at appropriate place and he should also be promoted from the date on which his junior was promoted as Superintendent.

¶22

In my view, the claim of the petitioner is fully justified. It is not the fault of the petitioner for not acquiring service qualification by undergoing training at Bhavanisagar Institute. It is not the case of the Department that the petitioner was sent for training, but he declined to undergo the said training. If there was a delay on the part of the Government in sending the petitioner for training due to the delay on the side of the Government in issuing Government Order regularising the service of the petitioner, the Government employee cannot be penalised.

¶23

In fact, the Higher Education Department in its letter dated 12.03.2015 has issued direction to the Directorate of Collegiate Education to revise the seniority, if there is a delay on the part of the department in sending to Bhavanisagar Training. The relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

¶24

2/ ,g;bghUs; bjhlh;ghf gpd;tUkhW bjspt[iu tH';fg;gLfpwJ:gthdprhfh; mog;gilg; gapw;rpf;F jhkjkhf mDg;gg;gl;ljd; fhuzkhf tpjpj;jsh;t[ bra;J ,sepiy cjtpahsh; gjtpapy; jFjpfhz; gUtk; Koj;J murhy; Mizfs; btspapl;l gpd;dh;. ,j;jifnahhplkpUe;J KJepiy jpUj;jk; kw;Wk; gjtp cah;t[ bjhlh;ghf kDf;fs; bgwg;gLkhapd;. fy;Yhhpf; fy;tp ,af;Fenu gzpapy; K:j;njhUf;F gzpK:g;g[ eph;zak; bra;J ,isnahUf;F epfuhf gjtp cah;t[ tH';fp Cjpak; eph;zapf;fyhk;/ ,j;jifa epfH;tpfspy; Cjpa epYitj; bjhiffs; Kd;njjpapl;L tH';f ,ayhJ/

¶25

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

¶26

In fact, this Court also had issued various orders of similar nature and one such order is dated 16.08.2013 made in W.P.No.26675 of 2011, wherein, a direction was issued to give promotion to persons, who were appointed on compassionate ground on par with his juniors when there was a delay in regularisation and declaration of probation.

¶27

For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant from the date on which his junior was promoted on notional basis and further promote him to the post of Superintendent from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted on notional basis, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
svki
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Higher Education (G2) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai -6.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education (Adm.)
College Road, Chennai -6.
+1cc to M/s. Muthuppan, Advocate, S.R.No.27116
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.27450
RSK(CO)
EU(01/07/2015)
W.P.No.960 of 2015

¶29

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

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Yuvaraj Prasanna 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Dhasan S/O.Pudhaliya Vs the Phanindhra Reddy, IAS

P.Revathi Vs Saikumar

R.Ram Kumar, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

K.Srinivasan Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Manahavala Perumal Vs State of Tamilnadu

A.Nepoleon, Vs The Secretary to Government