Dismissed

K.Tamil Mullai, v. the Principal Secretary and

Madras HC28 Aug 2023WP/19977/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing re-fixation of her seniority as Deputy Tahsildar to place her above a junior, based on a 2009 Supreme Court judgment. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that a 2019 Supreme Court clarification settles the matter prospectively and prevents re-fixation based on the earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. Next Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

K.Tamil Mullai, Vs the Principal Secretary and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

and

M.P.No.1 of 2010

Tamil Mullai

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk,

¶13

Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶15

N.Sakthivel, Deputy Tahsildar, C/o, The District Collector,

¶16

Salem. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents 1 and

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶21

2 re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of the Deputy Tahsildar and place her above the third respondent, in compliance with the judgment dated 08.04.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.2251 and 2252/2009 and also fix her pay on par with her junior on that basis, with consequential benefits of increments arrears of pay, including promotion as Tahsildar quash all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi

¶23

For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.M.Rajangam, Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain for Mr.I.Kowser Nissar

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the

¶27

respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of the Deputy Tahsildar as per the judgment dated 08.04.2009 in Civil Appeal Nos.2251 and 2252 of 2009.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶31

The petitioner joined as Typist in Salem Revenue District Unit on 17.10.1994 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant in the year 1998. After completion of M.Com and B.Ed., Degree examination, she got eligiblity for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2004 itself. However, she was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar only in the year 2009. Hence, she submitted a representation before the first respondent to refix the seniority in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar in the light of Honble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.2252 of 2009 and 2252 of 2009 dated 08.04.2009 reported in 2009 (5) SCC 625.

¶32

Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that

¶33

the judgment in which the petitioner sought for re-fixation of her seniority has been now clarified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.251-256 of 2015 dated 12.03.2019 held that promotions of the Direct recruit Assistants effected between 07.02.1995 and 08.04.2009 and their seniority in their respective positions as on date, shall not be disturbed. The benefit extended to the graduate

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶37

promotee Assistants by placing them on par with Direct recruit Assistants is to be given effect to prospectively from the date of judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009 rendered in the case of M.Rathinaswami Vs. State of Tamil Nadue reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625 . Further held that after 08.04.2009, the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar from its feeder category ie., Direct recruit Assistants and Promotee graduate Assistants shall be strictly in accordance with the judgement of this Court referred above. i.e., treating promotee graduate Assistants on par with Direct recruit Assistants. If any panels are prepared and promotions are given, after 08.04.2009 for promoting the Assistants to the post of Deputy Tahsildars in Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2009, such panels and promotions have to be revised so as to bring in conformity with the above judgment. So far as the promotee non-graduate assistants are concerned, the amended rule holds the field, which gives preferential treatment to Direct recruit Assistants over promotee non-graduate Assistants.

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶41

In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner

¶42

cannot be considered and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

28.08.2023

¶44

mfa Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order

¶45

¶46

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶47

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶48

N.Sakthivel, Deputy Tahsildar, C/o, The District Collector, Salem.

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶52

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN ,J.,

¶53

mfa

¶54

W.P.No.19977 of 2010

¶55

and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶56

28.08.2023

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

K.Tamil Mullai, v. the Principal Secretary and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Tamil Mullai, v. the Principal Secretary and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Nandakumar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Rajagopalan Vs Secretary to the Govt. for

K.Paramasivam Vs the Chairman Cum Managing

A. Ubayadullah Vs Tamilnadu Ex-Servicemens

The Chairman Cum Managing Vs the Controlling Authority

The Management of Renold Chain Vs Asst. Commissioner of Labour