Partly allowed

Murali.N v. the Special Secretary to Govt Finance (T and A-2) Department

Madras HC15 Dec 2025WP(MD)/10857/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Treasury department employee challenged rejection of his claim to be included in the 2012-2013 panel for promotion to Assistant Treasury Officer. The court held his relinquishment had expired on 31.03.2009 per an earlier order, so he was notionally in the 2009-2010 Sub-Treasury Officer panel; juniors could not supersede him. Impugned orders set aside and inclusion in the 2012-2013 panel directed

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to include petitioner in 2012-2013 Assistant Treasury Officer panel within 12 weeks; next-level claim left open with liberty to implead affected parties

Murali.N Vs the Special Secretary to Govt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

WP(MD) No. 10857 of 2021

N.Murali

.....Petitioner

1.The Special Secretary to Government Finance ( T&A-2) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts Integrated Finance Department Complex 571, Amma Valagam, 3^rd Floor Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶11

3.The Treasury Officer District Treasury Tiruchirappalli

¶12

....Respondents

¶13

Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent i.e., the Special Secretary to Government Finance (T & A-2) Department relating to the impugned Government letter No. 24495/kaka-2/2020-2 dt.22.12.2020 and communicated by the third respondent i.e., the Treasury Officer, Tiruchirapalli in his endorsement No. 24057/2019/B2 dated 11.02.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent i.e., the Special Secretary to Government, Finance (T &

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶17

A-2) Department, Chennai to include the name of the petitioner in the approved list of Assistant Treasury Officer of the year 2012-13 on par with his juniors Tmt.C.Padmini Dorathy and consequently to include the petitioner's name in the approved list of Additional Treasury Officer of the year 2018-19 on par with his junior Thiru.D.Suresh and give notional promotions in both the cadres on par with his juniors with all service benefits within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble High Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order

¶22

passed by the first respondent on 22.12.2020 wherein the request of the petitioner to include his name in the panel for the year 2012-2013 for promotion from the post of Sub-Treasury Officer to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer was rejected.

¶23

2.A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner while he was working as an Accountant, he become eligible for being promoted as Sub-Treasury Officer. He has given a temporary relinquishment letter on 27.04.2007 relinquishing his right for promotion for a period of three years. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, even after expiry of the three years period, his name was not included in the panel for promotion

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶27

to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer. Hence, he filed WP(MD).No.2649 of 2011. This Court by an order dated 15.03.2012 allowed the writ petition with an observation that the temporary relinquishment period of the writ petitioner

¶28

expired on 31.03.2009 and the petitioner would be entitled to inclusion in the panel from 01.04.2009 onwards.

¶29

3.In compliance with the order of this Court, proceedings were issued on 15.11.2012 by including the name of the writ petitioner for the post of Sub-Treasury officer in the panel for the year 2009-2010. However, the petitioner was actually promoted only on 15.11.2012 and he joined as a Sub-Treasury Officer on 03.12.2012.

¶30

4.The petitioner's name was included in the panel to the next level of promotion namely Assistant Treasury Officer for the panel year 2014-2015 and he was accordingly promoted. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his name should have been included in the panel for the year 2012-2013 for the post of Assistant Treasury Officer. He made a request to the concerned officials which was rejected under the impugned orders. Challenging these two impugned orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, when his name is included in the year 2009-2010 panel for the post of Sub-Treasury Officer, as a consequence, his name should have been included in the panel for 2012-2013 for the next level of promotion namely Assistant Treasury 3/9

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶34

Officer. However, under the impugned order, the request of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the required one year service experience as a Sub-Treasury Officer for being promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer. The impugned order does not point out that his name cannot be included in 2012-2013 in view of his relinquishment. The sole reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner has not acquired service qualification of one year training as a Sub-Treasury Officer.

¶35

6.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, after relying upon the various decisions of this Court, he submitted that there is no fault on the petitioner in acquiring service qualification as a Sub-Treasury Officer for a period of one year. When his relinquishment has expired on 31.03.2009, his name should have been included for the panel year 2009-2010 for the post of Sub-Treasury Officer for which the crucial date is 01.04.2009. Since the authorities have not included his name in the panel, he had rushed to the Court. When there is a fault on the part of the authorities in including his name in the panel for the year 2009-2010 for the post of Sub-Treasury Officer, the said service experience qualification cannot be cited as against the writ petitioner. Had his name being included in 2009-2010 panel, he would have very well completed one year service experience for including his name in 2012-2013 panel.

¶36

4/9

¶37

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

¶38

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶39

7.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein submitted that the writ petitioner has given his relinquishment letter only on 27.04.2007 as per the service records. When a period of three years is calculated from the said date, the relinquishment period expires only on 26.04.2010. In such circumstances, the petitioner was rightly promoted as a Sub-Treasury Officer in November 2012 after including his name in the panel for the year 2011-2012. When he was promoted in November 2012 as a Sub-Treasury Officer, the petitioner would be entitled for the next level of promotion as an Assistant Treasury Officer only in 2014-2015 because he has completed the service qualification of one year only in 2014-2015. He had further submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded the juniors who have already been promoted on being included in the panel for the year 2012-2013. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable without impleading those candidates. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

8.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

¶41

9.The dispute that arises for consideration is what is the actual period

¶42

of relinquishment for promotion to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer as per relinquishment letter submitted by the writ petitioner.

¶43

10.A perusal of the S.R.Book reveals that the petitioner has given a

¶44

relinquishment letter on 27.04.2007. However, the order of this Court in

¶45

5/9

¶46

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

¶47

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶48

WP(MD).No.2649 of 2011 reveals that the petitioner has given his relinquishment letter on 26.04.2006. As per the order of the writ Court in WP(MD).No.2649 of 2011, the period of relinquishment would expire on 31.03.2009 and the right of the petitioner to seek promotion gets revived from 01.04.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's name should have been included in any panel that is prepared after 01.04.2009. Accordingly, in compliance with the orders of this Court, proceedings have been issued by the respondent officials on 15.11.2012 including the name of the writ petitioner in 2009-2010 panel for promotion to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer. Therefore, it is nothing but consequential that his further promotion is also based upon 2009-2010 panel. Whoever is shown as junior to the writ petitioner in 2009-2010 panel, cannot march over the writ petitioner for the next level of promotion.

¶49

11.This Court has pointed out that the officials have erred in not including his name in 2009-2010 panel. Therefore, the order of promotion issued by the authorities on 15.11.2012 cannot be a benchmark for fixing the seniority of the writ petitioner. The petitioner has been notionally placed in 2009-2010 panel for the post of Sub-Treasury Officer. Even though the petitioner has not acquired one year experience as a Sub-Treasury Officer, in view of the settled position of law that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not acting as a Sub-Treasury Officer ( he has not been appointed as a 6/9

¶50

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

¶51

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶52

Sub-Treasury Officer by erroneous calculation of relinquishment letter), the order of the promotion issued by the authorities on 15.11.2012 cannot snatch away the seniority of the writ petitioner.

¶53

12.In view of the above said facts, it is clear that when the juniors of the writ petitioner as per 2009-2010 panel have been promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer based upon 2012-2013 panel, it is imperative that the petitioner should also be included in 2012-2013 panel.

¶54

13.In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the name of the writ petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer for the year 2012-2013. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

14.As far as the next level of promotion is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, in view of the fact that the petitioner's juniors have not been impleaded in the writ petition. However, it is left open to the writ petitioner to initiate independent proceedings for the next level of promotion after impleading the affected parties.

¶56

15.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.

¶57

15.12.2025

¶58

7/9

¶59

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

¶60

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶61

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa

¶62

¶63

1.The Special Secretary to Government Finance ( T&A-2) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

¶64

2.The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts Integrated Finance Department Complex 571, Amma Valagam, 3^rd Floor Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶65

3.The Treasury Officer District Treasury Tiruchirappalli

¶66

8/9

¶67

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

¶68

WP(MD).No.10857 of 2021

¶69

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶70

msa

¶71

WP(MD) No. 10857 of 2021

¶72

15.12.2025

¶73

9/9

¶74

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

Murali.N v. the Special Secretary to Govt Finance (T and A-2) Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali.N v. the Special Secretary to Govt Finance (T and A-2) Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kathijammal Vs The Consular

M/s. Vijay Durgambiga Construction Vs The Superintending Engineer (Highways)

Shree Royal Aqua, Rep. by its Proprietor, Vs The District collector

Uma Maheswari S Vs The Commissioner

Karnan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Prr Construction Vs The Superintending Engineer (Highways)