A retired employee petitioned for a writ of certiorari and mandamus seeking notional promotion and quashing of orders regarding his belated promotion. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner exhausted remedies incorrectly with the wrong authority and his service relationship had already terminated upon retirement.
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: 06.09.2021 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.29662 of 2019
P.Subramanian ...Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in (i) Roc.No.607-A/2014/C1 Dated: 16.04.2019 on the file of the 1st Respondent; (ii) Report in ROC No.607-A/2014/C1 Dated: 20.4.2015 sent in D.No.3304, Dated: 22.04.2015 on the file of the 2nd Respondent; (iii) Roc.No.198/A/2009 Dated: 10.01.2009 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and (iv) Roc.No.4387/2003/A Dated: 04.06.2006, on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same; consequentially direct the 2nd Respondent to give notional promotion to the Writ Petitioner as “Sherishtadar” in Category I of Class IV of TNJMS Rules with effect from 4.6.2003, with all attended benefits and within a reasonable time.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas for Ms.S.Surya Devi
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Balamurugan for respondents 1 and 2
: Mr.N.Manokaran for 3rd respondent
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner herein may have been hard done by in not being promoted ahead of a colleague in or about the year 2003.
carried to the High Court which was the appellate authority against an order of dismissal. Even paragraph 17 of the relevant order made the position clear that the revision petition was dismissed “as not maintainable”.
order dated January 10, 2009 has not been interfered with in the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner before this court. Thus, the petitioner's fate stood sealed upon the erroneous filing of the revision before an inappropriate authority and such authority dismissing the same as not maintainable. The further measures that the petitioner took were not in accordance with the procedure established under the Service Rules and, in the meantime, the petitioner's severance from service upon his superannuation took place. In the circumstances, it cannot be seen that there was any right that vested in the petitioner that the petitioner can assert to have legitimately pursued in accordance with the established procedure for the petitioner to claim the benefits, whether notional or monetary, in respect of the perceived irregularity in promoting some other ahead of the petitioner in the year 2003.
There will be no order as to costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sasi
To:
Copy to
The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court, Madras 104.
+2 Ccs to Ms.S.Surya Devi, Advocate sr 45347(16/09/2021)
W.P.No.29662 of 2019
RLD(CO)
SP(09/09/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired government employee can seek notional promotion for irregularities in the year 2003 after having exhausted local remedies incorrectly and after severance of service.
Whether the High Court can intervene to direct notional promotion when the petitioner's grievance was already rejected by the appropriate authority on maintainability grounds.
Whether the petitioner followed the procedure established under the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules in challenging the promotion order.
P.Subramanian
The Registrar General Madras High Court
The Principal District Judge Salem
R.Vijayakumar
SANJIB BANERJEE
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
