The High Court dismissed the appeal arising from a rejection of a promotion claim. The appellant sought parity with an official in a different department, but the court held that distinct cadres preclude common seniority or entitlement to such benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2018
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.2318 of 2012
K.Ranganathan .. Appellant
Vs
The Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent
against the order dated 17.07.2012 made in W.P.No.47960 of
2006.
Prayer in W.P.No.47960 of 2006:
Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari ,
to call for the records of the Respondent in connection
with the impugned order passed by him in Lr. No. 3526/U
Special/2001, 31.01.2001 and quash the same and direct the
Respondents to promote the Petitioner on par with Tr.
Padmanaban (Now serving in the Dy. Secretary) and grant him
all consequential service, monetary benefits.
For Appellant .. Mr.K.Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel Asst.By for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondent .. Ms.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan, Addl. Govt. Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, who, after hearing the appellant at length, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
2.The appellant was given a benefit under the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.126 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl) Department dated 29.05.1998. This Government Order has been passed in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion. Accordingly, the appellant executed an undertaking to the effect that he was accepting the terms and conditions issued in the aforesaid Government Order. Thereafter, he made a representation on 18.01.2001 inter alia contending that he should be promoted as Deputy Secretary to Government on par with one Mr.M.Padmanabhan. The aforesaid request was rejected and therefore, the writ petition was filed.
3.The learned single Judge was pleased to hold that cadre which was available at the earlier point of time was bifurcated. Therefore, one Mr.M.Padmanabhan, who was working at the relevant point of time at the Finance Department cannot be considered on par with the appellant, not being in the same cadre. Thus, there is no legal right to claim promotion from the date of promotion of the aforesaid person with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present writ appeal.
4.Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that both the appellant and the said Mr.M.Padmanabhan were appointed on the same day. Though the appellant was appointed in the Labour Department as against Mr.M.Padmanabhan in Finance Department, the appellant was senior to him. Thus once Mr.M.Padmanabhan was promoted as Section Officer in the year 1985 as against the appellant in the year 1991 and thereafter in the cadre of Under Secretary in the year 1991 as against the appellant in 2004, he being junior to the appellant, benefits will have to be given to the appellant.
5.We are not inclined to accept the contention made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
Admittedly, the cadres are different. The appellant was working in the Labour Department as against the other person Mr.M.Padmanabhan in the Finance Department. Once the cadres become different, there cannot be any common seniority. The order passed is one time measure giving certain benefits to the persons similarly placed like that of the appellant. It is nothing but a concession given to the appellant. The appellant having accepted the abovesaid Government Order and without challenging the same, again approached this Court on the presumption that the cadres are one and the same, which is factually incorrect.
7.Though the Government Order was passed as early as 29.05.1998, the appellant raised his claim after accepting the said Government Order, only through the representation made on 18.01.2001. Certainly, the facts narrated above would clearly show that both the appellant and Mr.M.Padmanabhan stand on a different footing working in different departments, which admittedly did not have a common seniority list. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No. 79977 W.A.No.2318 of 2012 ASK(21/12/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an official promoted in one cadre can claim promotion and benefits on par with an official in a different cadre.
Whether a government concession benefiting similarly placed persons in a specific order can be claimed across different departments with separate seniority lists.
K.Ranganathan
The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
M.M.SUNDRESH
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
