In this review application concerning promotion denial and junior promotions post-retirement, the High Court has disposed of the petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks.
Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation within 8 weeks and pass orders.
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.
Rev.Aplw. No.174 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Review Application No.174 of 2023 against W.P. No.24892 of 2012
M.Balasubramani, Son of Late Muthusamy, No.162, Anna Nagar, Manaparai Post, Tiruchirapalli District – 621 306.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 read with section 114 C.P.C., to review the order dated 30.06.2022 in W.P.No.24892 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing Counsel
1/4
Rev.Aplw. No.174 of 2023
ORDER
The petition for Review of the order in W.P.No.24892 of 2012 was filed primarily on the premise that the petitioner had been deprived of the promotion which is legitimately due only in view of the fact that the Respondent had not carried out the exercise of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Grade despite several posts being vacant. That strangely, 5 months after the petitioner's retirement, several of his juniors were promoted, which shows that the promotions were withheld for extraneous reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to certain decisions in support of his contentions.
the juniors of the petitioner were promoted prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. Further, the order of this Court in W.P.No.24892 of 2012 does not warrant any interference and the review petition is liable to be rejected.
2/4
Rev.Aplw. No.174 of 2023
of this Court to submit a representation before the Respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner is already 80 years of age and thus the petitioner's case may be considered on sympathetic grounds.
5. In the circumstances, the Review Application is disposed of with a direction that if any representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Respondents and orders passed in accordance with law after granting an opportunity within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
26.02.2024
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Spp
3/4
Rev.Aplw. No.174 of 2023
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Spp
To:
Review Application No.174 of 2023 against W.P. No.24892 of 2012
26.02.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review application regarding deprivation of promotion should be disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's representation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Balasubramani
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Mohammed Shafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
