Allowed

N.Chithiraisekar v. the Director of Rual

Madras HC6 Mar 2018WP(MD)/2338/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking promotion as Assistant Engineer, quashing the impugned order. The court held that sanctioned medical leave cannot render the petitioner ineligible and directed respondents to include his name in the promotion panel.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for Assistant Engineer (Rural Development) for 2014-15.

N.Chithiraisekar Vs the Director of Rual — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 06.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2338 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2545 & 2546 of 2018

¶7

N.ChithiraiSekar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.17054/2015/EE2 dated 23.11.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel for the post of Assistant Engineer for the year 2014-15 on par with his immediate juniors with all other benefits.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.VijayShankar For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah, Addl., Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is presently working as Union Overseer in Srivaikundam Panchayat Union Office, Thoothukudi District. The next promotion post is that of Assistant Engineer (Rural Development). As per the relevant recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer (Rural Development), a person who has put in five years of service in the feeder category would be eligible for being promoted.

¶15

2.According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Draughting Officer on 23.02.2009 and that therefore, he would be eligible to be considered for promotion after 23.02.2014. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents are taking the stand that they would not count the period from 06.04.2010 to 15.09.2010 as he was on leave on loss of

¶16

¶17

pay on medical grounds during the said period.

¶18

3.It is not in dispute that this period was sanctioned and also regularised. As per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the absence of a member of a service from duty in such service, whether on leave, or on foreign service or on deputation or for any other reason and whether his lien in a post borne on the cadre of such service is suspended or not, shall not, if he is otherwise fit, render him ineligible in his turn.

¶19

4.Therefore, absence of the petitioner herein on medical grounds which was duly sanctioned cannot render him ineligible. The respondents are bound to count the said period of leave also. Since the same has not been done, the order impugned in this writ petition has to be necessarily quashed and it is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to include the petitioner's name in the panel for the post of Assistant Engineer (Rural Development) for the year 2014-15 on par with his immediate juniors with all other benefits, if he is otherwise eligible. The respondents shall pass orders in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

5.This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶25

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.V.KARTHIKEYAN,Advocate,SR.53230

¶27

+1cc to M/S.Special Government Pleader,SR. 53634

¶28

W.P(MD)No.2338 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.2545 & 2546 of 2018 06.03.2018

¶29

SKM

¶30

KK/SKN RSK/SAR 4/09.03.2018/ 2P- 5C/

¶31

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

N.Chithiraisekar v. the Director of Rual

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Chithiraisekar v. the Director of Rual

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

C.Anuradha Vs the Sub Collector

P.Chinnasamy Vs the Senior Regional Manager

R.Charles Vs the Agricultural

N.Palanivel, Vs the Thasildar

D.Ashik Tennison Vs the Director General of Police

Janaki, W/O.M.Arumugam, Vs the Senior Accounts Officer