Division Benches dismissed Writ Appeal challenging Single Judge's order upholding respondent's seniority from initial appointment date. Court held seniority relies on Service Rules, and fixation of date is a policy decision for Government.
Appeal dismissed; Government directed to consider the case for regularisation and seniority fixation as per service rules.
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 Orders reserved on: 19/11/2018 Orders pronounced on: 27 /06 /2019 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD Writ Appeal No.2519 of 2018 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Rural Development Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Panagal Building Saidapet Chennai 600 015. 3. The District Collector PD Section Nagapattinam District. ...Appellants / Respondents Vs L. Kannan Assistant Development Section Collectorate Nagapattinam. ...Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.7942 of 2013 dated 11/1/2018.
Prayer in W.P.No.7942 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.(3D) No.43, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department dated 09.12.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same in so far as fixing of seniority of the petitioner by placing him in the bottom most in the seniority list of Assistant as on 09.12.2011 and further direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner in the
cadre of Assistant with effect from 01.05.2001, the date of posting him as Assistant with all consequential service benefits such as retrospective promotion and pay benefits within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
For appellants ... Mr.STS.Murthy AAG – V
Assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram Special Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by Subramonium Prasad,J)
Instant writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 11/1/2018, passed by the Court in W.P.No.7942 of 2013.
The respondent herein was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as Radio Supervisor and was placed under the Tamil Nadu Local Administration Radio and Television Maintenance Organisation, in the Rural Development Department. Their services were utilised by Village Panchayat. The Government, decided to abolish the post of Radio and Television Supervisors. On abolition of the post, respondent was directed to work in the Collectorate, Rural Development unit, as Assistant, with effect from 1/5/2001. Accordingly, the respondent joined the service, but his services in the Collectorate was not regularised. With regard to the fitment of Seniority, in the cadre of assistant, in the Collectorate, government took a decision and came out with G.O.Ms.No.(3D) No.43, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, dated 9/12/2011 that seniority shall be determined in the cadre of Assistant from the date of Government Order i.e., on 09.12.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed W.P.No.7942 of 2013, contending that their seniority must be reckoned from 01.05.2001.
“the transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as 1st appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred.”
“11. The petitioners were appointed as Radio Supervisors in Tamil Nadu Local Administration Radio and Television Maintenance Organisation. They are now accommodated as Assistants by transfer of service. The petitioners are therefore entitled to the benefits of Rule 35 (b) extracted above. I am therefore of the view that the respondents were not correct in denying the petitioners, benefits of their earlier service and fixing them below others presently working in the transferee Department.”
order, dated 23/6/2016, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed and dismissed as under:-
“2. It appears that the respondent had filed the writ petition questioning the fixation of seniority and for a further direction to reckon his seniority in the cadre of Assistant from the date of his initial appointment and for retrospective promotion and other benefits which flows from such absorption. Although the learned Single Judge has granted the relief of absorption in the post of Assistant with effect from the date on which the respondent joined the post and to release the benefits accrued on such absorption to him, with regard to the relief of promotion etc., the learned Sincle Judge has only directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent based on the service rules or guidelines applicable and on fulfillment of the norms laid down by the Government in this regard. Such being the case, there is no question of contending that an adverse order is being passed against the Government. Rather the officers, ho are responsible have to take note of the direction of the learned Single Judge in proper perspective for considering the case of the respondent for promotion as to whether he satisfies the criteria or condition required thereof and to do the needful in accordance with law. Such being the case, the appeal being redundant and without merit is dismissed. It is for the appellants to do the needful in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties for some time.
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
“Rule 35 (b):-“the transfer of a person from one class or category of a service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as 1st appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred.”
Rule 35 (d) (i):- If he is absorbed in a post similar to that which he was formerly holding in the service of the merged territory of Pudukottai, his seniority shall be determined by the date from which he was holding the former post continuously.”
"21. In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 8, held thus,
"8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14, the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst
persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question."
"8. ............. we do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the court."
//True Copy//
mvs/pkn.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rural Development Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Saidapet
Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
PD Section
Nagapattinam District.
+1 cc to Mr.A.S.Palanisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.53084
W.A.No.2519 of 2018
NMI(CO)
SSM(25/07/2019).
3 issues framed by the court
Whether seniority of an officer transferred from a disbanded post to an Assistant post with the same pay scale should be reckoned from the date of original appointment or the date of the Government Or
Whether the appellant Government can deny seniority benefits to similarly placed officers based on a general policy decision without considering established service rules.
Whether the High Court is competent to consider Service Rules applicable to the case or if determination of seniority is a policy decision reserved for the Government.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of IndiaReferred¶43
Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 48 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. N. ParameshwarappaReferred¶47
State of Karnataka v. N. Parameshwarappa, 2003 (12) SCC 192 · Who else cites this
Hari Ram v. State of HaryanaReferred¶49
Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2010 (2) CTC 336 (SC)
State of U.P. v. Dayanand ChakrawartyReferred¶50
State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, 2013 (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595 · Who else cites this
Writ Petition Nos. 27207 and 27208 of 2012Followed¶14
W.P.Nos.27207 and 27208 of 2012
Writ Appeal No. 736 of 2016Referred¶23
W.A.No.736 of 2016
Writ Appeal No. 1165 of 2017Referred¶27
W.A.No.1165 of 2017 and others
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Government of Tamil Nadu
L. Kannan
S. Manikumar
Subramonium Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
