Dismissed¶86

The Managing Director, v. C. Vijayakumar

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WA(MD)/933/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TNSTC Tirunelveli writ appeal dismissal; promotion seniority dispute; 2015 seniority list governs promotion timing; Rule 60 Common Cadre Service Rules; reversion without recovery of monetary benefits; incharge temporary post; contempt petition is proper forum for implementation disputes; Clause 15 Letters Patent; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi JJ.; decided 09.12.2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; the single Judge's direction that promotion to the writ petitioners be regulated by the 2015 seniority list stands. ¶86

The Managing Director, Vs C. Vijayakumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeals dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; the single Judge's direction that promotion to the writ petitioners be regulated by the 2015 seniority list stands.

¶86

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 23.03.2022 of the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)Nos.8201 to 8203 of 2018, directing promotion to the writ petitioners by taking the seniority in the year 2015, is clear and free from ambiguity, and whether these writ appeals warrant interference. +1 more

¶84

Court's answer

Contentions that the seniors shown above the writ petitioners in the 2015 seniority list have either given up their claim for promotion or whose turn has already arisen must be canvassed only in the contempt petition; the Court is not concerned with developments in the subsequent year.

¶85

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the learned single Judge is sufficiently clear and does not admit of any ambiguity.

¶84

Key takeaways

As made clear by the learned single Judge, promotion has to be granted to the writ petitioners by taking into account the seniority list for the year 2015; the order does not direct immediate promotion overlooking their position in the 2015 seniority list.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeals (W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022) by the Management of TNSTC (Tirunelveli) under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order dated 23.03.2022 of the learned single Judge allowing W.P(MD)Nos.8201 to 8203 of 2018. The single Judge had set aside promotions granted to private respondents 5 and 6 overlooking the writ petitioners' seniority, directed promotion to the writ petitioners by taking the seniority in the year 2015 with consequential monetary benefits, ordered reversion of respondents 5 and 6 without recovery of the monetary benefits availed by them (treating their tenure as service in a temporary 'incharge' post), noting deliberate non-following of Rule 60 of the Common Cadre Service Rules. Held (G.R. Swaminathan J., R. Kalaimathi J. concurring): the single Judge's order is sufficiently clear and unambiguous - promotion is to be granted by taking into account the seniority list for the year 2015, and not immediately bypassing it; contentions that seniors have given up their claims or whose turns have arisen must be raised only in the pending contempt proceedings. Writ Appeals dismissed; no costs; connected C.M.P(MD)Nos.7742, 7743, 8023 to 8026 of 2022 closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.A(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶9

and

¶10

C.M.P(MD)Nos.7742, 7743, 8023 to 8026 of 2022

¶11

W.A(MD)No.933 of 2022:

¶12

1.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

3.The Deputy Manager (HRD), The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

... Appellants / Respondents 2 to 4

¶16

1/10

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶19

Vs.

¶20

1.C.Vijayakumar

¶21

... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶22

2.The State represented by The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. ... 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Respondent 3.A.S.Perumal ... 3^rd Respondent / 5^th Respondent 4.S.Sivanpillai ... 4^th Respondent / 6^th Respondent

¶23

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.8201 of 2018 dated 23.03.2022.

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Jebaraj For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandra Sekaran for R.1 Mr.S.S.Shaji Bino Additional Government Pleader for R.2 Mr.J.Bharathan for R.4 No Appearance for R.3

¶25

2/10

¶26

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

¶27

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶28

W.A(MD)No.997 of 2022:

¶29

1.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

3.The Deputy Manager (HRD), The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

... Appellants / Respondents 2 to 4

¶33

Vs.

¶34

1.S.Suresh

¶35

... 1^st Respondent /

¶36

Writ Petitioner

¶37

2.The State represented by The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶38

3.A.S.Perumal

¶39

... 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Respondent

¶40

... 3^rd Respondent /

¶41

5^th Respondent

¶42

3/10

¶43

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

¶44

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶45

4.S.Sivanpillai ... 4^th Respondent / 6^th Respondent

¶46

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.8203 of 2018 dated 23.03.2022.

¶47

For Appellants : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Jebaraj

¶48

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandra Sekaran for R.1

¶49

Mr.S.S.Shaji Bino Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶50

Mr.J.Bharathan for R.4

¶51

No Appearance for R.3

¶52

W.A(MD)No.998 of 2022:

¶53

1.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶54

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited,

¶55

4/10

¶56

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

¶57

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶58

Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli District.

¶59

3.The Deputy Manager (HRD), The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District.

¶60

... Appellants / Respondents 2 to 4

¶61

Vs.
1.R.Suresh Kumar	... 1^stRespondent / Writ Petitioner
2.The State represented by The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.	... 2^ndRespondent / 1^stRespondent
3.A.S.Perumal	... 3^rdRespondent / 5^thRespondent
4.S.Sivanpillai	... 4^thRespondent / 6^thRespondent

¶62

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.8202 of 2018 dated 23.03.2022.

¶63

For Appellants : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Jebaraj

¶64

5/10

¶65

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

¶66

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶67

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandra Sekaran for R.1 Mr.S.S.Shaji Bino Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶68

Mr.J.Bharathan for R.4

¶69

No Appearance for R.3

¶70

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶71

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶72

Heard both sides.

¶73

2.The Managing Director, TNSTC has filed these writ appeals questioning the common order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P(MD)Nos.8201 to 8203 of 2018 filed by the respective first respondents. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved by the promotion conferred on the private respondents in the writ petitions. Their specific contention was that overlooking their seniority, promotions were granted. The learned single Judge agreed with the contention of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions in the following terms:

¶74

“16. The impugned order is set aside and the official respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioners by taking the seniority in the year 2015 with the consequential monetary benefits to the

¶75

6/10

¶76

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

¶77

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶78

petitioners. Since the 5^th and 6^th respondents have already served in the post and received the monetary benefits, the official respondents are directed to revert the respondents 5 and 6. Since the respondents 5 and 6 have served in the post and has received monetary benefits applicable to the said post, it can be considered as temporary post, which is ''incharge post'' and the official respondents are refrained from recovering the monetary benefits availed by the fifth and sixth respondents. This relief is granted since the respondents deliberately have not followed Rule 60 of the Common Cadre Service Rules.”

¶79

Questioning the same, these Writ Appeals have been filed by the Management.

¶80

3.The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the writ petitioners are misconstruing the order passed by the learned single Judge and have filed contempt petitions. According to him, the writ petitioners would be given promotion only when their turn arises as per the seniority list for the year 2015. He further contended that the writ petitioners are trying to give the impression that the learned single Judge had given a direction for immediate promotion, overlooking their position in the 2015 seniority list.

¶81

7/10

¶82

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

¶83

W.A.(MD)Nos.933, 997 & 998 of 2022

¶84

4.We are of the view that the order passed by the learned single Judge is sufficiently clear and does not admit of any ambiguity. The learned single Judge made it clear that promotion has to be granted to the petitioners by taking into account the seniority list for the year 2015.

¶85

5.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners / contesting respondents would argue that the persons who have been shown as seniors to the writ petitioners in the 2015 seniority list have either given up their claim for promotions or that their turn as per seniority list has already arisen. These contentions have to be canvassed only in the contempt petition and we are not concerned with the developments, if any, in the said subsequent year.

¶86

6.With the aforesaid observation, these Writ Appeal are dismissed.

¶87

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶88

[G.R.S., J.] [R.K.M, J.] 09.12.2025

¶89

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶90

8/10

¶91

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