Disposed¶34

T.Mani S/O. K. Thambi v. Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation

Madras HC11 Mar 2025WP/18500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; promotion; upgradation; Draughtsman Grade III to Draughtsman Grade II; Junior Drafting Officer; Drafting Officer; selection grade; special grade; G.O.Ms.No.210 P & A dated 11.03.1987; Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation; representation pending since 2010; superannuation 31.08.2017; parity with retired employees; Poovarasi; six weeks' compliance; no costs; Madras High Court; decision dated 11.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, giving parity if similar benefit was given to other retired employees after retirement; no costs. ¶34

T.Mani S/O. K. Thambi Vs Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion/upgradation from Draughtsman Grade III (Junior Drafting Officer) to Draughtsman Grade II (Drafting Officer) as per G.O.Ms.No.210, P & A dated 11.03.1987 with effect from June 2012, with consequential disbursement of amounts based on the upgraded post. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner retired only in 2017 and had been repeatedly representing from 2010, the respondents could have retained the files, and it would have been fair to dispose of the earliest representation; the pendency of the representation without disposal warranted an appropriate direction.ratio¶33
While considering the representation, the respondents are to give parity in case such benefit has already been given to any other retired employees subsequent to their retirement.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R.N. Manjula, J.) disposed a writ petition by a retired employee of the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation who sought promotion/upgradation from Draughtsman Grade III (Junior Drafting Officer) to Draughtsman Grade II (Drafting Officer) under G.O.Ms.No.210, P & A dated 11.03.1987 with effect from June 2012, with consequential monetary benefits. The petitioner, appointed as Tracer in 1986 (regularised w.e.f. 19.06.1986) and promoted to Draughtsman Grade III in 1992, had represented continuously from 2010 and superannuated on 31.08.2017; a comparator employee (Poovarasi) was given the benefit after her retirement. Holding that the respondents could have retained the files and ought fairly to have disposed of the earliest representation, the Court directed consideration of the pending representation on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks, with parity if the benefit had been extended to other retired employees post-retirement. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

T.Mani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Orange Grove Road, Coonoor - 643 101, The Nilgiris.

¶11

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd., Orange Grove Road, Coonoor - 643 101, The Nilgiris.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pass necessary orders for promotion of the petitioner from in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade III (Junior Drafting Officer) to Draughtsman Grade - II, (Drafting Officer) as per G.O.Ms.No.210, P & A dated 11.03.1987 with effect from June 2012 and consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the amount based on the upgraded post of Drafting Officer - Draughtsman - II.

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Murugan.S For Respondents : Mr.B.Raghavan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pass necessary orders for promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade III (Junior Drafting Officer) to Draughtsman Grade - II, (Drafting Officer) as per G.O.Ms.No.210, P & A dated 11.03.1987 with effect from June 2012 and consequently, direct the respondents to disburse the amount based on the upgraded post of Drafting Officer - Draughtsman - II.

¶19

2. Heard Mr.Murugan.S, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Raghavan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Factory Supervisor in the year 1984. He was appointed as Tracer with the respondent Corporation in the year 1986. His services have been regularised with effect from 19.06.1986. In the year 1992, the petitioner was given with promotion to Draughtsman Grade III. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.210,

¶21

Page No.2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

¶24

Personal and Administration Department dated 11.03.1987 for granting selection grade and special grade to the persons who have been promoted to the post of Draughtsman Grade III and Draughtsman Grade II.

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given representation in this regard to the respondents. But the same has not been considered so far.

¶26

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that

¶27

the petitioner has given only continuous representation from the year 2010 and he has not taken any steps till the filing of this Writ Petition. The petitioner left the issue for more than 7 years and it is difficult to trace out the files. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.08.2017 and awarding of special grade is not automatic and it is only on the merits of the case.

¶28

6. Whatever may be the case, the petitioner cites one Poovarasi

¶29

who had also given with the benefit subsequent to her retirement. As the petitioner has retired only in the year 2017 and he has been repeatedly

¶30

Page No.3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

¶33

giving representation from the year 2010, it would be possible for the respondents to retain the files. It would have been fair on the part of the respondents, if disposal is given to the earliest representation of the petitioner. As the representation of the petitioner is pending without any disposal, I feel an appropriate direction to be given.

¶34

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by giving parity, in case such benefit has already given to any other retired employees subsequent to the retirement. No costs.

¶35

Index : Yes /No 11.03.2025 Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk

¶36

Page No.4 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.18500 of 2019

¶39

¶40