Allowed

J.Ezhilan v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC21 Aug 2023WP/15506/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's promotion claim. It held that bifurcating the Madras division for promotion purposes was impermissible. The court directed promotion to a higher post from the date the petitioner's junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.08.2012 set aside. Petitioner directed to be promoted from the date the third respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits.

J.Ezhilan Vs the Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶7

J.Ezhilan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5

¶8

2.The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai South Division, Greams Road, Chennai-6 3.N.Ragunathan ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the first respondent's proceedings made in Ref.No.P2/ 25608/2012 dated 24.08.2012 and consequently direct the first and second respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant and thereafter as DCTO and to other consequential higher post from the date on which his immediate junior viz., the third respondent herein was promoted as such with all consequential benefits, both service and monetary thereto.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Balasubramanian

¶11

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

1/6

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

ORDER

C hallenging the order passed by the first respondent dated

¶16

24.08.2012 thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner to include

¶17

his name in the panel for the year 2011 of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer.

¶18

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶19

The petitioner was selected through Tamilnadu Public

¶20

Service Commission and he was posted to the Office of the Commercial

¶21

Taxes Department. He was ranked No.9 and he had possessed departmental test for the purpose of further promotion as Assistant. However, his claim was not considered and his junior i.e. the third respondent who was appointed like the petitioner as Junior Assistant and promoted to the post of Assistant. However, the petitioner was promoted

¶22

as Assistant only during the year 2007. The petitioner's claim was not

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶26

considered for the reason that each division of Madras district was considered as separate unit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant. As per GO.Ms.No.520 CT and RE Department dated 13.05.1982, the alleged bifurcation of Madras division to Madras North and Madras South divisions were held impermissible. Therefore, the Government directed cancellation of earlier order by holding that it had accepted the proposals of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation on 10.08.2011. However, it was rejected by an order dated 24.08.2012 by the first respondent.

¶27

On perusal of GO.Ms.No.520 CT and RE Department dated 13.05.1982, the separation of division is impermissible and there is no authority or jurisdiction to act on division basis i.e. treating every division as separate unit for the purpose of promotion. The statutory rule with regards to unit for promotion, appointment, etc shall be Chennai South and not as sought to be made and done others who ranked below the petitioner in the recruitment through Tamilnadu Public Service

¶28

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶30

Commission. The statutory rule in relation to Ministerial Service Rules would prescribe that the promotion to the post of Assistant shall be filled up from the qualified Junior Assistant etc., from the combined inter-se seniority list of holders with reference to the date of regular appointment in respective category.

¶31

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that now the first respondent realised the claim of the petitioner and had sent necessary proposal to the Government of India to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶32

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.08.2012

¶33

is set aside. The first respondent is directed to promote the petitioner to higher post from the date on which his immediate junior i.e. the third respondent herein was promoted, with all consequential benefits both service and monetary thereto.

¶34

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There

¶35

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶37

shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

21.08.2023

¶39

Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶40

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶41

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶43

lok

¶44

To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5 2.The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai South Division, Greams Road, Chennai-6 3. The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras.

¶45

W.P.No.15506 of 2013

¶46

21.08.2023

¶47

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

J.Ezhilan v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ezhilan v. the Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Poongundran, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Muthukumaraswamy Vs the Managing Director

R.Duraimohan, Vs the Registrar of Coop.

C.Pichaikaran Cr 09682 Vs the Managing Director

K.Alagiri Vs the Secretary to Government

Srinibabu Vs the Union of India