R.Kanniyappan Vs the Chief Engineer (General) and (Wro) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

R.Kanniyappan Vs the Chief Engineer (General) and (Wro) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, who were promoted to Wireman Grade-II and Electrical Maistry earlier than the fourth respondent, were entitled to notional promotion as General Foreman on par with him, notwithstanding that his seniority was re-fixed above theirs based on his earlier entry into the post of Helper. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellants cannot claim parity in promotion with the fourth respondent, since he was initially appointed as Helper prior to them and was shown as their senior in the revised seniority list, notwithstanding their earlier promotions to intermediate posts.

Ratio / Principle

The conduct of the appellants in raising the claim six years after retirement, without adducing reasonable cause for the delay and laches, weighed against their claim.

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge properly appreciated and rejected the appellants' claim; the Division Bench found no reason to interfere and dismissed the writ appeal.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – Seniority and promotion – Notional promotion as General Foreman – Appellants, though promoted to Wireman Grade-II (1988) and Electrical Maistry (2007/2008) earlier than the fourth respondent (1992 and 2009), were appointed as Helpers only in 1977, whereas the fourth respondent entered service in 1972 and his seniority was re-fixed on 31.10.2008 at Serial No.4 against the appellants at Serial Nos.33 and 34, seniority in the PWD being fixed by date of entry into the post of Helper per Chief Engineer's proceedings dated 04.07.2013 – Division Bench held parity in promotion untenable where the beneficiary stands senior in the revised seniority list, and observed the claim raised six years after retirement suffered from unexplained delay and laches – Learned Single Judge's rejection upheld; Writ Appeal dismissed, no costs. (Madras HC, W.A.No.2682 of 2022, decided 08.09.2025; Bench: M.S. Ramesh and R. Sakthivel, JJ.; judgment by M.S. Ramesh, J.)

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.09.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

1.R.Kanniyappan

2.R.Arumugam

...Appellants

Vs.

1.The Chief Engineer (General) & (WRO), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

3.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division – II, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

4.M.E.Govindraj

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.31278 of 2016, dated 22.09.2021 and allow the Writ Petition.

For Appellants : Mr.A.Ramalingam

Page 1 of 6

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

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

For Respondents : Mr.G.Ameedius, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 : No Appearance for R4

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

The claim of the appellants herein before the Writ Court was for notional promotion as General Foreman on par with the fourth respondent herein, predominantly on the ground that though both of them were promoted to the post of Wireman Grade-II, Head Wireman and Electrical Maistry, prior to the fourth respondent’s promotions, they were entitled to be promoted as General Foreman on par with the fourth respondent.

According to the appellants, their promotion to the post of Wireman Grade-II was in the year 1988 and to that of the Electrical Maistry in the years 2007 and 2008 respectively, whereas the fourth respondent was promoted as Wireman Grade-II in the year 1992 and as Electrical Maistry in the year 2009 only.

The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 22.09.2021 passed

in Writ Petition No.31278 of 2016, had rejected the claim of the

Page 2 of 6

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

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

appellants, on the ground that the appellants herein joined the post of Helper in the year 1977, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed as a Cleaner in the year 1972 itself and his seniority was re-fixed on 31.10.2008 above the appellants herein.

The seniority of the employees of Public Works Department is

fixed based on the date of entry into the post of Helper. As per the proceedings of the Chief Engineer dated 04.07.2013, such seniority was determined on the basis of the concerned electrical circles. Admittedly, both the appellants herein were appointed in the year 1977, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed as Helper in the year 1972 itself. Though the appellants herein were promoted to the post of Wireman Grade-II and Electrical Maistry even prior to the fourth respondent and he was shown as junior to the appellants herein, his seniority was re-fixed based on his representation at Serial No.4, whereas the appellants' seniority were fixed at Serial Nos.33 and 34 respectively.

Admittedly, when the fourth respondent was initially appointed

as a Helper, which is prior to the appellants herein and he was also shown

Page 3 of 6

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

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

as their senior as per the revised seniority list, we fail to understand how the appellants can claim parity in terms of promotion on par with the fourth respondent herein. This apart, the conduct of the appellants in having raised this claim after six years of their retirement, without adducing any reasonable cause for the delay and laches, also is not appealing to us.

In our view, the learned Single Judge had properly appreciated the claim of the appellants and had rejected the same. We find no reason to interfere with the same and hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

[M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J] 08.09.2025

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

Page 4 of 6

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

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

To

1.The Chief Engineer (General) & (WRO), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

3.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division – II, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

Page 5 of 6

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

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

hvk

W.A.No.2682 of 2022

08.09.2025

Page 6 of 6

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