Disposed

B.Nagarajan, v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC15 Sept 2023WP/17613/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order directing the Inspector General of Registration to examine representations from two retired officers regarding denied promotions and seniority, specifying timelines for fresh submissions and departmental orders.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to examine fresh representation from petitioners within three weeks and pass necessary orders on service records within eight weeks. Petitions disposed of.

B.Nagarajan, Vs The Inspector General of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 15.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

WP.Nos.17613/2016 & 18551/2016

¶7

B.Nagarajan

¶8

... Petitioner in WP.No.17613/2016

¶9

N.Rajendran

¶10

... Petitioner in WP.No.18551/2016

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶13

2.The District Registrar Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

3.Maya Krishnan

¶15

... Respondents in WP.No.17613/2016

¶16

1.The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶17

2.The District Registrar Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶18

... Respondents in WP.No.18551/2016

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶22

Prayer in WP.No.17613/2016 : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶23

Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus Directing

¶24

the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2014 25.02.2014 and 21.07.2014 and pass orders within the stipulated time.

¶25

Prayer in WP.No.18551/2016 : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus Directing the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.11.2015 and pass orders within the stipulated time.

¶26

For Petitioners in both Writ Petitions : Mr.S.Senthilnathan

¶27

For RR 1 & 2 in both the Writ Petitions : Mr. S.Ravikumar, Spl.GP

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

(1) Since the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions seek a mandamus

¶30

directing the 1st respondent, Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, to consider their representations dated 06.01.2014,

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶34

25.02.2014 and 21.07.2014 given by the petitioner in WP.No.17613/2016 and dated 14.11.2015 given by the petitioner in WP.No.18551/2016 and the representations also sought the same relief, namely to consider them to be promoted as Sub Registrars from the post of Assistant, a common order is passed.

¶35

(2) In the affidavit filed in support of WP.No.17613/2016, the petitioner B.Nagarajan stated that he had originally joined the Registration Department as Record Clerk on 10.08.1983 and after passing his Departmental examinations, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 15.02.2002. He was also subsequently promoted as Assistant on 14.07.2008. He continued to work as Assistant and retired from service on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶36

(3) In the affidavit filed in support of WP.No.18551/2016, the petitioner N.Rajendran stated that he had joined the Registration Department as Record Clerk on 11.08.1983 and was promoted as Junior Assistant on 03.10.2022 and further promoted as Assistant on 25.06.2008. He retired from service on 31.10.2014 as Assistant.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶40

(4) Both the petitioners claim that the seniority which had been assigned to them when they joined the post as Record Clerks and subsequently, when they were promoted as Junior Assistant, had not been adhered to by the respondents and they have mentioned that the juniors to them, specifically V.Maya Krishnan, who had joined the Department as Record Clerk subsequent to the petitioners herein, on 25.06.1984 and who had been later promoted as Junior Assistant and then as Assistant only on 18.06.2009, had been further promoted as Sub Registrar. Claiming that they had been denied this particular promotion as Sub Registrar, both the petitioners had given the aforementioned representations.

¶41

(5) It is only appropriate that the respondents examine the said representations.

¶42

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WP.Nos.17828 to 17832/2000 [Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai and Another Vs. P.Ramadoss and Others]. By a judgment dated 24.02.2005, the Division Bench was examining a writ of

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶46

certiorari seeking interference with an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 03.05.2000, by which, similarly placed petitioners before the Tribunal were considered for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar and it had been held by the Tribunal that the crucial date was the date of promotion as Junior Assistant.

¶47

(7) It would only be appropriate that the respondents examine this particular judgment of the Division Bench and pass necessary orders on the representations. At this passage of time, it is also probable that the representations given by the petitioners, may not be readily available with the 1st respondent.

¶48

(8) A direction is given that both the petitioners may give a fresh representation and also enclose a copy of the order of the Division Bench mentioned supra and a copy of this order. The fresh representation may be given within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the 1st respondent may examine the same after examining the Service Records of the two petitioners, pass necessary orders within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representations

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶52

(9)

¶53

from the petitioner.

¶54

(9) Observing as above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

15.09.2023

AP Internet : Yes

1.The Inspector General of Registration 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶59

2.The District Registrar Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶60

3.The District Registrar Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

¶64

¶65

WP.Nos.17613 & 18551/2016

¶66

15.09.2023

¶67

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

¶68

B.Nagarajan, v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Nagarajan, v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antony Muthu Nadar (Died) 1. a.Asirvatham Vs Devagana Nadar

S.Magesh Kumar Vs The Zonal Manager cum

S.Abirami Vs The Zonal Manager cum

S.Kavitha Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

V.Elayaraja Vs The Commissioner

B.Gayathri Vs The Director of Treasuries