Dismissed

R.M. Bhuvaneswari v. the Commissioner of Municipal

Madras HC19 Nov 2018WA/13/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking inclusion in promotion seniority lists was dismissed as the appellant was under charge at the relevant time. The court directed the relevant respondent to dispose of a pending appeal against the withholding of increment punishment within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; direction issued to first respondent to dispose pending appeal against withholding of increment within twelve weeks.

R.M. Bhuvaneswari Vs the Commissioner of Municipal — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.11.2018 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶3

W.A.No.13 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶4

R.M.Bhuvaneswari

¶5

R.M.Bhuvaneswari .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration, Chepauk,
Chennai - 5.
2.The Commissioner,
Erode Corporation,
Erode - 1.
3.L.Gowri
4.R.Madhaiyan
5.P.V.Arumugam ..Respondents

¶6

Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 01.02.2010 made in W.P.No.1456 of 2010.

¶7

W.P.No.1456/2010:

¶8

Petition praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders i. final seniority list dt 22.8.2009 made in Na. Ka. C.1/42159/2008 ii.panel list for the promotion to the post of Superintendent dt 25.8.2009 made in Na. Ka. No.C1/42159/2008 iii. Promotion order dt 4.11.2009 made in Na. Ka. No.C1/9620/2009 and iv. order dt. 05.11.2009 made in Na.Ka. No.C1/42159/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent herein quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to revise the seniority list and panel list for the year 2007-2008 for inclusion of the petitioner in the appropriate place i.e. above the name of the respondents 3 to 5 and give all consequential benefits provided under the law.

¶9

For Appellant .. Mr.P.Rajavel For Respondents.. Mr.V.Kathirvel, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 R3 to R5 - No appearance

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶12

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

¶13

The appellant was working as an Assistant with the second respondent. Though in the temporary/primary panel prepared for promotion, her name was included, it was not found in the revised seniority list issued on 25.08.2009 on the premise that she as given a charge memo on 22.08.2009. Under those circumstances, seeking inclusion, the present writ petition has been filed, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that inasmuch as the charge was pending at the relevant point of time, such a request was not feasible for consideration. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

¶14

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶15

3.What was formulated at the earlier point of time is only tentative seniority list. Admittedly, at the time of publishing the revised seniority list, the appellant was facing charge. This charge also ended in the punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The appellant also filed an appeal against the same before the first respondent, which is pending consideration.

¶16

4.In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. As per the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR Department dated 18.10.1993, an employee is not entitled for being considered for promotion while facing charges. Even otherwise, in law, the appellant cannot be considered while facing charges. Thus, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

¶17

5.However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed against the order imposing punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect, which has been made through the office of the Corporation of Erode District viz., the second respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is still pending. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

-s/d-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶20

True Copy

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

mmi

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk,

¶26

Chennai - 5.

¶27

2.The Commissioner, Erode Corporation, Erode - 1.

¶28

+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 79528. +1 CC to Mr.P.Rajavel, Advocate sr 78723.

¶29

W.A.No.13 of 2013
SAI(CO)
SP(05/12/2018)

¶30

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

R.M. Bhuvaneswari v. the Commissioner of Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.M. Bhuvaneswari v. the Commissioner of Municipal

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

R.Ramesh Vs Union of India

M.Kolandaivelu, Vs The Secretary to Government

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

C.Maragathavalli Vs v.Jeyabharathi

The Madurantakam Co. Op Sugar Vs R.Raman (Deceased)

Sorimuthu Vs the Additional Director