Dismissed

Y. Sam Daniel v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Jan 2016WA(MD)/23/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a claim by a reinstated government employee seeking notional promotion to Superintending Engineer. The Court held that promotion to a superior cadre is not automatic when the employee has not completed the requisite feeder service period.

What did the court decide?

No promotion was granted; the writ petition seeking notional promotion was dismissed and the appeal was rejected.

Y. Sam Daniel Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

Writ Appeal(MD) No.23 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.95 of 2016

¶6

Y.Sam Daniel

¶7

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,

¶10

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Fort St., George,

¶12

Chennai 600 009.

¶13

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents/Respondent

¶14

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 02.09.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.15846 of 2015.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 15846/ 2015 :

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.24832/Estt(Per)/A5/2014 dated 7.7.2015 quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to notionally promote the petitioner as Superintending Engineer in the 2001 panel as per the proceedings in B.P.Ms. No.164 dated 26.7.2001 on par with his juniors and disburse the terminal benefits, full pension, all monetary benefits, arrears of revised salary, periodical increment and pension together with nominal rate of interest within a reasonable time.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.R.Russel Raj For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Special Government Pleader.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

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

¶22

The writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, challenging the denial of the promotion on notional basis.

¶23

2.Heard Mr.R.Russel Raj, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

3.The appellant joined services in the TWAD Board in 1970 as Assistant Engineer. On 30.04.1994 he was placed under suspension on the allegation of acquiring assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. A charge sheet was filed in S.C.No.6 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Judge, (DVAC) Tirunelveli. By a judgment dated 12.07.1999, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also slapped with a fine.

¶25

4.Based upon his conviction, he was dismissed from service by the proceedings dated 27.03.2000.

¶26

5.Challenging the order of dismissal he filed an appeal. In the meantime, he also filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.585 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Bench of this Court challenging the conviction.

¶27

6.The appeal was allowed by this Court by a judgment dated 09.12.2009. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Government was dismissed on 03.01.2011.

¶28

7.Thereafter, the Government passed an order in G.O.(D). 462 dated 17.11.2011, cancelling the dismissal order and directing reinstatement with further direction to take disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the appellant was reinstated by the proceedings dated 23.11.2011. He was also given one notional promotion as Executive Engineer with effect from 07.07.1993.

¶29

8.Subsequently, in the disciplinary proceedings, he was imposed with a cut in the pension and he was permitted to retire on reaching the superannuation.

¶30

9.Thereafter, the appellant sought further higher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. It was rejected by the respondents forcing him to come up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15846 of 2015. The same was dismissed by the learned

¶31

¶32

Judge by an order dated 02.09.2015. It is against the said order, that the appellant has come up with the above appeal .

¶33

10.The above narration of events would show that the appellant was originally dismissed from service way back on 27.03.2000. He was reinstated only after 11 years by the proceedings dated 23.11.2011. The Government fairly considered his case and granted him one notional promotion. The next higher promotion is not automatic. He had not completed two years of service in the feeder category. The contention that he was not responsible for the same cannot be accepted.

¶34

11.The post of Superintending Engineer is of a superior cadre and promotion to it is not automatic. It depends upon various parameters. Therefore, the rejection of the request cannot be held to be unfair. The dismissal of the writ petition was justified. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.95 of 2016 is closed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶37

/True Copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

¶40

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai 600 009.

¶41

2.The Managing Director,

¶42

Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, No.31, Kamarajar Salai,

¶43

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶44

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.2118

¶45

+1cc to Mr.R.Russel Raj,Advocate Sr.No.2064 sms

¶46

AA/PM-MP/02.02.2016/3p-5c

¶47

Writ Appeal(MD) No.23 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.95 of 2016 11.01.2016

¶48

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

Y. Sam Daniel v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Sam Daniel 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Thirumurugan, S/O.Ganesan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Ajay Kumar, Vs the Chief Manager / Authorized

G. Mariappan Vs the Revenue Tahsildar

R. Dharmalingam Vs the District Collector

Ganesan Vs the Commissioner

M. Vijayakumar Vs the District Collector