Allowed

K. Veerammal v. the Secretary

Madras HC31 Jan 2017WP(MD)/13384/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the fixation of seniority. The court held the petitioner, regularized in 1991, was senior to respondents regularized in 1992 and 1993. It quashed the order placing her lower and directed her promotion before the others.

What did the court decide?

The impugned seniority list quashed; petitioner to be placed senior to respondents and directed to receive promotion prior to or on the same day as respondents.

K. Veerammal Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 31.01.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13384 of 2011 and MP(MD).NO:2 of 2011

K.Veerammal

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Survey House, chepauk, Chennai.

¶12

3.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶13

4.R.Meenakshi

¶14

5.D.Senthilkannan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent in revising the seniority made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A11/6288/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and the consequential order on temporary promotion to the 4^th and 5^th respondents herein in Na.Ka.No.A11/6288/2011 dated 02.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Grade Draughtsman, Pudukottai District.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.Ravi for R4 and R5

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent in revising the seniority made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A11/6288/2011 dated 14.07.2011 and the consequential order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on temporary promotion to the 4^th and 5^th respondents herein in Na.Ka.No.A11/6288/2011 dated 02.11.2011 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Grade Draughtsman, Pudukottai District.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner, during the period of 1981 and 1983 for the completion of survey of lands in the State, a scheme was undertaken by the Government called Updating Register scheme otherwise called as UDR scheme, for which, was appointed by a District Committee headed by the District Revenue Officer, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records and an Officer nominated by the Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed by the said Committee on 17.04.1983 as Surveyor/Draughtsman, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District on a consolidated pay. Subsequently, by proceedings of the third respondent, dated 11.10.1991, the petitioner was brought under time scale of pay for the post of Draughtsman. Thereafter, the seniority list was drawn for the post of Draughtsman at the District level, wherein, the petitioner's name was placed at S.No.5. As against the method of fixation of seniority for the post of Surveyor/Draughtsman, some aggrieved persons approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and filed OA Nos.1330/1990 and 2434/1990 and the Tribunal by order dated 29.09.1992 directed the respondent therein to draw the list of seniority based on the date of joining of the candidates, after completion of training. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, some of them had filed review application in RA No.143 and 144 of 1992 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by order dated 13.04.1994. Thereafter, the third respondent has prepared a seniority list pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. The said seniority list also once again was challenged by some aggrieved persons, this time by filing O.A.No.5639 of 1995 before the Tribunal and the said O.A. also dismissed on 14.09.1995. Thereafter, the third respondent finalised the seniority list to the post of Surveyor cum Draughtsman on 20.12.1995.

¶21

Subsequently, the Government issued a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.374 Revenue Department dated 13.06.2006, through which, the temporarily appointed Surveyor/Draughtsman like the petitioner, originally, under consolidated pay and subsequently under time scale of pay, had been regularised with effect from the date, originally, they were brought under time scale of pay and not beyond that. Accordingly, by virtue of G.O.No.374, the petitioner's service was regularised from 11.10.1991. In view of the said Government order, the petitioner's seniority was also released by proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.07.2008 wherein, the petitioner was shown at S.No.32.

¶22

In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed in the Department as Surveyor/Draughtsman on compassionate ground on 10.08.1992 and 18.01.1993 respectively. However, their services were regularised by relevant Government orders issued on 30.05.1996 and 16.07.1996 respectively. Though https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such Government orders regularising the service of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were issued only in the year 1996, actually, the import of the Government order would give retrospective regularisation of the respondents 4 and 5 from the date of their original appointment, namely, 10.08.1992 and 18.01.1993 respectively. Therefore, the

¶23

¶24

fact remains that the petitioner's service was regularised on 11.10.1991, respondent No.4 was regularised on 10.08.1992 and respondent NO.5 was regularised on 18.01.1993.

¶25

Subsequently, on 27.10.2010, the third respondent issued further proceedings, by which, the seniority of Surveyor cum Draughtsman of the District had been fixed, wherein, the petitioner's name had been shown at S.NO.2, whereas the respondents 4 and 5 were shown at S.NOs.5 and 6. While so, all of a sudden, the present impugned order dated 14.07.2011 was issued by the third respondent, whereby the third respondent has issued a seniority list for Draughtsman of the Pudukottai District, wherein, the respondents 4 and 5 have been shown at S.Nos.22A and 23A, whereas the petitioner's name had been shown at S.NO.32. Consequent upon the said order dated 14.07.2011, further order was issued by the third respondent dated 02.11.2011, by which, the respondents 4 and 5 had been given promotion as Senior Grade Draughtsman. Challenging both the orders, dated 14.07.2011 and 02.11.2011, the petitioner has come out with this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶26

6. Heard both sides.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the orders passed by the Government through G.O.No.374 Revenue Department dated 13.06.2006, the petitioner's service as Draughtsman has been regularised from 11.10.1991, whereas, the service of the respondents 4 and 5 had been regularised from their original date of appointment ie., from 10.08.1992 and 18.01.1993 respectively. Pursuant to the said orders, whereby, separately the services of the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 had been regularised in the cadre of Draughtsman seniority also has been fixed atleast twice one by order dated 10.07.2008 of the third respondent, wherein the petitioner's name was shown at S.No.32, whereas the respondents 4 and 5 name were shown at S.Nos.41 and 42 and another proceedings dated 27.10.2010, where the petitioner's name is at S.NO.2 and there respondents 4 and 5 name at S.Nos.5 and 6. When that being so, all of a sudden, the present impugned order dated 14.07.2011 was issued by the third respondent, wherein, the seniority of the petitioner has been pushed back to S.NO.32, whereas the seniority of the respondents 4 and 5 were brought before as S.Nos.22a and 23a. Absolutely, there is no reason whatsoever from the official respondents to justify such a wrong fixation of seniority between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5. Correspondingly, the consequential promotion given to the respondents 4 and 5 by the third respondent through the impugned order dated 02.11.2011, is also bad as admittedly, the petitioner is senior than the respondents 4 and 5 and therefore, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequential promotion should have been given first to the petitioner, as the petitioner stood at S.No.2 at the very proceedings issued by the third respondent dated 27.10.2010, whereas, in the very same proceedings, the names of the respondents 4 and 5 are shown at S.Nos.5 and 6. Now, by virtue of the impugned

¶28

¶29

orders, the petitioner at S.NO.2 has been denied promotion, whereas the respondents 4 and 5 are at S.Nos.5 and 6 in the very same proceedings, admittedly, juniors to the petitioner have been given promotion. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with, he contended.

¶30

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents would contend that no doubt the seniority have been fixed for petitioner as well as the private respondents herein from the date of original appointment insofar as R4 and R5 is concerned and from the date of the time scale of pay given to the petitioner is concerned. However, in subsequent developments, orders were passed by this Court in W.P.No.2275/2005 dated 10.06.2009, only pursuant to which, from the date of regularisation of the incumbents as recommended by the Department, the seniority list were prepared. Accordingly, the petitioner has been placed at S.NO.32 and the respondents 4 and 5 were placed at S.Nos.22a and 23a. It was also stated in the said order, dated 14.07.2011, which is impugned herein that, if there is any objection, the aggrieved persons can make an appeal to the Assistant Director concerned, who is the third respondent. (Though it is stated as 'Assistant Director' since the order impugned was passed by the Assistant Director, appeal could have been filed before the Deputy Director concerned). Accordingly, the petitioner also had submitted an appeal before the Deputy Director, Trichy and the said appeal is pending before the concerned appellate authority and is yet to be disposed. Therefore, if at all the petitioner had any grievance, it is for the petitioner to approach the third respondent, in respect of the impugned seniority list published by the third respondent, the same can be rectified through the appeal filed by him before the appellate authority before whom the appeal is still pending consideration. Therefore, the present impugned order need not be interfered with at this stage, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 has submitted that through the order dated 14.07.2011, which is impugned herein, the seniority of respondents 4 and 5 has been fixed by the third respondent and pursuant to the said seniority, since the respondents 4 and 5 are seniors to the petitioner, further promotion to the post of Senior Grade Draughtsman was given to the respondents 4 and 5 by the proceedings dated 02.11.2011 and based on which, the respondents 4 and 5 joined in the promoted post and have been working. Therefore, at the length of this period, since they are working at the promoted post, they may not be disturbed.

¶32

This Court has considered the rival submissions made by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, his services was regularised from 11.10.1991 and this factor is evidenced not only from the relevant portion of the

¶34

¶35

Government order in G.O.No.374 but also in the order passed by this Court dated 22.01.2007 made in W.P.No.27767 and 27768/2006. The relevant portion in the Government order reads thus:

¶36

“4. nkw;fz;l khtl;lq;fSs;> g[Jf;nfhl;il khtl;lj;ijr; rhh;e;j bjhFg;g{jpa epy msth;/ tiuthsh;fis fhyKiw Cjpaj;jpy; epakdk; bgw;w tptuq;fis epy msit kw;Wk; epythpj;jpl;l rpwg;g[ Mizah; kw;Wk; ,af;FehplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;Ls;sij Ma;t[ bra;J> taJ tuk;gpw;Fs; cs;s ,izg;g[ 1-2 y; cs;s egh;fspd; (epy msth;/tiuthsh;) gzpapid mth;fspd; bgaUf;bfjpuhf yk; 3-y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epakd ehs; Kjy; gzp tud;Kiw bra;Jk;> ,th;fspd; gzptud;Kiw bra;j ehspypUe;J tUlhe;jpu Cjpa cah;t[ tHq;fp gzg;gad; bgwt[k;> muR MizapLfpwJ. nkYk; ,izg;g [ 3-4y; cs;s epy msth;/tiuthsh; gzpapid taJ tuk;g[ fle;jjd; fhuzkhf 1987k; Mz;L jkpH;ehL gzpfs; eilKiw E}ypd; Kjy; bjhFjpapy; cs;s khepy kw;Wk; rhh;epiyg;gzpfSf;fhfd bghJ tpjpfspy;> tpjp 48-y; tHq;fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhuj;jpd; fPH; tud;Kiwg;gLj;j VJthf mth;fs; bghUl;L jkpH;ehL epy msit kw;Wk; gjpntLfs; rhh;epiyg; gzp tpjp 5-I jsh;j;jp epakd ehs; Kjy; gzptud;Kiw bra;a jkpH;ehL MSeh; mth;fshy; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. nkYk; ,izg;g[ 3-4,y; fyk; 3-y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s egh;fSf;F ghh;it K:d;wpy; fz;Ls;s mizapd;go Xuhz;ow;F gpd; Kjy; Cjpa cah;t[k;> gpd; bjhlh;e;J Mz;L Cjpa cah;t[k; tHq;fp muR MizapLfpwJ.”

¶37

Considering the said factor that the G.O. has been issued, by which, the grievance of so many persons like the petitioner have been redressed by the Government, this Court by order dated 22.01.2007 cited supra has passed the following order:

¶38

“11.The learned Government Advocate produced before me a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.374, Revenue (L.R.3(2)) Department, dated 13.06.2006 and the proceedings of the Assistant Director in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 25.09.2006. By the Government order, all persons brought into time scale of pay of the posts of Surveyor/Draughtsman were regularised in service with effect from the respective dates of their appointments in time scale of pay. Those who had crossed the upper age limit for appointment, were also granted relaxation and their services have also been regularised with effect from the dates of their appointment in the time scale of pay. The Assistant Director of Land Records, Pudukottai, has implemented the Government Order by his proceedings dated 25.09.2006.

¶39

12.The petitioners herein, have been

¶40

regularised with retrospective effect by the aforesaid Government orers and their annual increments have also been sanctioned. The details of such regularisation in respect of each of the petitioners in these writ petitions is given in the enclosed Tabular Form.

¶41

13.In view of the above, the writ petitions are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ closed, recording the fact that the prayers of the petitioners, have been granted under the aforesaid Government order G.O.Ms.No.374, Revenue (L.R.3(2) in Na.Ka.A1/5558/2000, dated 25.09.2006. Such of those petitioners in respect of whom details are not

¶42

¶43

available, may work out their remedies if their services have not been regularised so far and their grievance remain unredressed. No costs.”

¶44

Annexure II of the said Government order in G.O.No.374 consist of 15 names, wherein, the petitioner's name finds at S.No.7, according to which, the petitioner's service has been regularised from 11.10.1991. This has been taken into account by the learned Judge in the judgment referred to above and the very table given in the G.O. has reproduced in the said order by the learned Judge and the relevant portion pertaining to the petitioner alone is extracted hereunder:

¶45

Name	O.A.No.	W.P.No.	Prayer	Sl.No.in G.O.374	Regularise d w.e.f.
K.Veeramma l	2433/96	27768/06	To quash the revised seniority list dated 20.12.1995 and consequent ial reversion order dt. 20.4.96	7-Ann II	11/10/1991

¶46

After this Government orders, the third respondent also has issued proceedings dated 10.07.2008 as well as 27.10.2010. In the said proceedings, the petitioner's name is found at S.No.32, whereas the respondents 4 and 5 are at S.Nos.41 and 42. Similarly, in the 2^nd proceedings, the petitioner's seniority is at S.No.2, the respondents 4 and 5 are at Sl.Nos.5 and 6. When that being so, we do not understand why suddenly, the third respondent has passed the present impugned order, wherein, the petitioner's seniority has been pushed back about 10 numbers from the respondents 4 and 5, as they have been purposely brought above the petitioners and some other persons at S.Nos.22a and 23a by way of insertion. If at all the respondents 4 and 5 had to be given seniority, accordingly from the date of their regularisation, which is admittedly only on 10.08.1982 and 18.01.1993 respectively, the petitioner's seniority shall not be pushed back as the petitioner's regularisation date back from 11.10.1991 well ahead of the respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, absolutely, there is no reason whatsoever on the part of the third respondent to fix the seniority of the petitioner below the respondents 4 and 5 and based on which, when promotions to the next cadre of post of Senior Draughtsman given to the respondents 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 5, the same ought not to have been denied to the petitioner, who is admittedly senior than the respondents 4 and 5. In view of this clear factors, which are borne out of record and in view of the Government order referred to above as well as the subsequent orders of this Court cited supra, wherein the import of the said

¶47

¶48

Government order, whereby the services of the petitioner has been regularised from 11.10.1991, has been taken note of, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner, being senior than respondents 4 and 5, should have been given further service benefits including the promotion to the next cadre and the same atleast should have been given prior to the promotion given to the respondents 4 and 5.

¶49

In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition:

¶50

(i)The impugned order of the third respondent dated 14.07.2011 insofar as fixing the seniority of the petitioner at S.No.32 is quashed. Correspondingly, the third respondent is directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner, by taking into consideration of G.O.Ms.No.374 Revenue LR(2) Department dated 13.06.2006, whereby, her regularisation was made from 11.10.1991 and accordingly, place the petitioner in the seniority list in the appropriate place, certainly, above the respondents 4 and 5.

¶51

(ii) Correspondingly, since promotions to the next higher post has been given to the respondents 4 and 5, who are admittedly junior than the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to get promotion to the next higher post prior to or on the same day the respondents 4 and 5 were given promotion. Therefore, the third respondent is hereby directed to give such promotion to the petitioner either from the date on which, the respondents 4 and 5 were given promotion or any prior date.

¶52

(iii) In view of the aforesaid directions, the promotions already given to the respondents 4 and 5 need not be disturbed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be considered to be senior than the respondents 4 and 5, in view of the aforesaid orders.

¶53

(iv) The needful as directed above shall be done by the concerned respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits, which includes pensionary benefits. It is made clear that the order of status quo already granted shall stand vacated.

¶54

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶57

/TRUE COPY/

¶58

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

1.The Secretary, State of Tamilnadu Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai.

¶62

¶63

2.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Survey House, chepauk, Chennai.

¶64

3.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶65

+1 cc to MR.M.RAVI, ADVOCATE, SR NO:5177

¶66

+1 cc to MR.S.BALA KARTHICK, ADVOCATE, SR NO:5283

¶67

+1cc to M/S.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO:5321

¶68

¶69

SVA/MR/13.03.2017/8P/7C

¶70

W.P.(MD)No.13384 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 31.01.2017

¶71

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

K. Veerammal v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Veerammal v. the Secretary

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

P.Manthiramoorthy, Vs the Managing Director

S.Hari Vasanth, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

RD.138 Cecri Employees Co- Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative-

T. Jagadeesan, Vs the Co-Operative Sub Registrar

Janaki, Vs the Commissioner

K. Sekar Vs State Rep by Its Secretary