Allowed

N.S.Senthilkumar B.Tech v. The Chairman

Madras HC3 Aug 2022WP/629/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his non-inclusion in a promotion panel due to pending charges. The Court noted the charges were cancelled/withdrawn post-pendency. It directed the TANGEDCO to include the petitioner in the selection panel based on seniority within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to TANGEDCO to include petitioner in the promotion panel fit for Assistant Executive Engineer at appropriate place based on seniority within eight weeks.

N.S.Senthilkumar B.Tech Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.08.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.629 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.777 of 2018

N.S.Senthil Kumar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶11

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶12

3.The Superintending Engineer Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Corporation, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the impugned approved selection panel issued by the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.010708/39/G11/2017-14, dated 27.02.2018 and quash the same insofar as deferring the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer / Electrical and direct the 2^nd respondent to promote the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer / Electrical on par with his juniors by including the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the approved selection panel in Memo No.010708/39/G11/2017-14 dated 27.02.2018 on the basis of the letter of the 2^nd

¶14

1 / 7

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶17

respondent vide Letter No.010708/39/g.1/g.11/2017-3, dated 28.06.2017.

¶18

(Prayer amended as per order dated 09.03.2018 by TRJ in WMP No.6081 of 2018 in W.P.No.629 of 2018)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian Standing Counsel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for

¶22

the records connected with the impugned approved selection panel issued by the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.010708/39/G11/2017-14, dated 27.02.2018 and quash the same insofar as deferring the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer / Electrical and direct the 2^nd respondent to promote the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer / Electrical on par with his juniors by including the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the approved selection panel in Memo No.010708/39/G11/2017-14 dated 27.02.2018 on the basis of the letter of the 2^nd respondent vide Letter No.010708/39/g.1/g.11/2017-3, dated 28.06.2017.

¶23

The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at the respondent TANGEDCO, which is one of the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) for which a panel was drawn and it was issued by the respondents on 27.02.2018, where number of people have been

¶24

2 / 7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶27

included from the three feeder categories for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas in the said order, 66 Assistant Engineer (Electrical) including the petitioner's name have been shown as if that their names have not been included because of the reasons stated against each of the candidates.

¶28

Insofar as the petitioner's candidature is concerned, his name also has not been included in the panel and it has been rejected from inclusion as set out in the order dated 27.02.2018. The reason for non-inclusion of the petitioner is that, as against him there was Rule 8(b) charges pending on the crucial date. Challenging the said non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 27.02.2018, he has moved this writ petition with amended prayer.

¶29

Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that, no doubt initially there was a charge against the petitioner under Rule 8(b) and that was challenged before this Court. However pursuant to the same, proceedings dated 23.06.2022 was issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, by which the charge framed against the petitioner under Rule 8(b) has been cancelled or withdrawn. The relevant portion of the order of the Additional Chief Engineer dated 23.06.2022 reads thus,

¶30

“vd nt. khz;g [kp F brd;id cah;e Pjpkd;wk; m spj;j j P h ; g ; gpid eil Kiwg; g Lj;Jk; tifapy; jp U/N.S.bre;jpy; Fkhh;. K d ; d h; cjtp

¶31

3 / 7

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶34

b ghwpahsh;-,g-mk;ikahh; F g ; gk; jw;nghJ br';fy;gl; L kpd; gfph;khd tl;lk;-br';fy;gl; L mth;fs; k PJ x G'; F kw; Wk; nky; Kiwa Pl; L tpjp 8 (b) d ; f P H ; bjhlug;l;l x G'; F eltof;if. m J bjhlh;ghf 1 7/09/201 4 ehspl; L t H';fg;gl;l F w ; wr ;rhl; L F w p g ; ghiz kw; Wk; 0 2/08/202 1 ehspl; L t H';fg;l;l cj;njr fhuzk; nfl;g [ F w p g ; ghizfs; M f p a midj;Jk; ,jd; thapyhf uj;J bra ;J cj;jutplg;g L fpwJ/ “

¶35

Relying upon this proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, since the very charge under Rule 8(b) itself has been cancelled or withdrawn by the proceedings of the Additional Chief Engineer dated 23.06.2022, there could be no further impediment for the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 27.02.2018 as the said pendency of the charge was the only reason cited in the said order for non-inclusion of the petitioner in the panel.

¶36

Heard Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent TANGEDCO, who would submit that, if that was the reason for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner and subsequently the charge memo itself has been cancelled or withdrawn, then there could be no further impediment for the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel dated 27.02.2018 and accordingly needful would be undertaken within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶37

Having considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶38

4 / 7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶41

both sides and taking into account the proceedings dated 23.06.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO under which the charge framed against the petitioner under Rule 8(b) was either cancelled or withdrawn as stated supra, this Court feels that there could be no further impediment for the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Memo No.010708/39/G11/2017-14 dated 27.02.2018.

¶42

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following orders.

¶43

That there shall be a direction to the respondent TANGEDCO to include the name of the petitioner in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer dated 27.02.2018 at appropriate place based on his seniority.

¶44

It is needless to mention that, once such inclusion is made, the petitioner would be entitled to get further benefits like promotion and other consequential service benefits, which also be extended to the petitioner.

¶45

The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶47

5 / 7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶50

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

03.08.2022

¶52

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST To

¶53

1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶54

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶55

3.The Superintending Engineer Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Corporation, Kancheepuram.

¶56

6 / 7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.629 of 2018

¶59

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶60

KST

¶61

W.P.No. 629 of 2018

¶62

03.08.2022

¶63

7 / 7

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.S.Senthilkumar B.Tech v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Senthilkumar B.Tech v. The Chairman

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

U.Mani @ Ganapathiappan Vs The Principal Secretary to

Shiv Pratap Singh, Vs The Union of India

Metropolitan Development Authority Vs Ansuel Mishra IAS

S.Mariappan Vs Union of India

R.Boopathi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Sebastin Amalraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu