Dismissed¶29

S.Muthuraj, v. the Director of Sugar and Cane

Madras HC6 Jan 2025WP/21825/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; belated challenge to 1985 promotions; promotion to Cane Officer/Assistant Cane Officer; B.Sc (Agri) qualification introduced by 1987 rule amendment; retirement of petitioner; National Co-operative Sugar Mill, Madurai District; Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; W.P.No.21825 of 2011 dismissed by Madras High Court on 06.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner failed to challenge the 1985 promotions at the relevant point of time and approached the Court only in 2011, after a lapse of about 25 years. ¶24

S.Muthuraj, Vs the Director of Sugar and Cane — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.21825 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.21825 of 2011 and

M.P.No.1 of 2011

S.Muthuraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Director of Sugar, No.690, Periyar Buildings, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

2.The Special Officer, The National Co operative Sugar Mill Ltd., A-2731, Alanganallur (Via), Madurai District – 625 502. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records of the 1^st respondent proceedings Rc.No.9343/A&1/2011 dated 20.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to promote petitioner as Cane Officer with effect from 18.05.1985 and grant petitioner all attendant benefits including Dearness allowance from that date.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Stalin

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam Government Advocate.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.21825 of 2011

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the

¶21

promotion to the post of Cane Officer on the ground that, some of his juniors were promoted to the post of Cane Officer/Assistant Cane Officer during the year 1985, while ignoring the case of the petitioner.

¶22

Admittedly, the rules were amended in the year 1987 prescribing qualification of B.Sc (Agri) for the post of Cane Officer and the petitioner does not possess the said qualification. Even assuming that some of his juniors or co-employees were promoted to the post of Cane Officer/Assistant Cane Officer by relaxing the requirement of possessing requisite qualification during the year 1985, the petitioner failed to challenge the said promotion at

¶23

the relevant point of time and finally approached this Court only in the year 2011, that is after a lapse of about 25 years.

¶24

In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to the dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. Further, as already noted above, admittedly, the petitioner does not possesse the requisite qualification to hold the post of Cane Officer/Assistant Cane Officer. Hence, the question of considering the claim of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Cane Officer/Assistant Cane Officer does not arise.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.21825 of 2011

¶28

As seen from the material on record, the petitioner has already

¶29

retired from service almost a decade back and hence, for this reason also, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and grant relief as sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶30

06.01.2025

¶31

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

¶32