Dismissed

M.Jayapalan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC24 Jan 2018WA/672/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the single judge's order dismissing a writ appeal seeking relaxation of service rules and notional promotion. The bench held that the Government's discretion to grant relaxation is not a matter of right and the appellant failed to raise the issue during service.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal seeking relaxation of Rule 7(a) and notional promotion was dismissed, upholding the single judge's order.

M.Jayapalan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.01.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A.No.672 of 2016

¶6

M.Jayapalan ... Appellant

¶7

Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government cum Commissioner of Land Administration

¶8

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶9

2.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7849 of 2016 dated 02.03.2016.

¶11

W.P.No.7849 of 2016: Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant relaxation of Rule 7(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules for the post of Deputy Thasildar and consequently direct the respondents to grant notional promotion of Deputy Thasildar and to pay all benefits accrued there from in the case of the petitioner.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.S.Udayakumar

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.V.Anandhamurthy Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT

¶14

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶15

The writ petition filed by the appellant for a direction to the Government to grant relaxation of Rule 7(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that relaxation is not a matter of right. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ come up with this intra court appeal.

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been making representation to the respondents for considering his case for relaxation and for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. The Government kept the matter pending and the same resulted in filing the writ petition after attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel further contended that under similar circumstances, relaxation was given to the other employees even after retirement and as such, the learned Single Judge was not correct in rejecting the prayer for relaxation.

¶17

We have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

The appellant tried his level best for passing the departmental examination, which is a pre-condition for considering his case for further promotion. The last of such attempt was in 2012. The appellant even during the currency of his service submitted representation for relaxation. It is true that the representation was not considered by the Government in spite of recommendation made by the higher authorities. It is a matter of record that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 May, 2013. It was three years thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus.

¶19

There is no dispute that the Government is having a discretion to relax Rule 7(a) for the purpose of giving promotion to the employee. The relaxation is not a matter of rule. The Government has to consider host of factors before granting relaxation.

¶20

The appellant ought to have taken up the issue during the currency of his service. The appellant waited till his retirement for filing the writ petition. In fact, the writ petition was filed only after three years. There was no employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the respondents as on the date on which the writ petition was filed. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government cum Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶27

2.The District Collector Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.

¶28

1 cc Mr.S. Udhaya Kumar, Advocate Sr.5685
+ 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.5830
W.A.No.672 of 2016
NRK(CO)
EU(19/02/2018 )

¶29

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

M.Jayapalan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jayapalan, v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indirani, Aged 66 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

State of Tamilnadu Vs P.Sundarasamy

Mr.Rama Rao Ayyagari Vs Govt of Tamilnadu

The Teachers Recruitment Board Vs G.Sasikala

The Secretary Vs S.Balaraman

R.Ramajalam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by