S.Ponmozhi v. the Director

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WP/20105/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 20105 of 2012; disposed 08-04-2026; single judge K. Surender; Article 226 Certiorari Mandamus; promotion and seniority dispute; Foreman from 1986 Serial No.19; Technical Assistant Serial No.12; Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department; panel list 04.10.2011; promotion order 04.11.2011; Se.Mu.Order No. A4/6463/2011; juniors S. Chandrasekaran and T.Manoharan promoted without proper panel; earlier Tribunal and High Court direction to consider representation; superannuation; pensionary benefits before competent authority; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on the promotion/seniority claim; petitioner left free to approach the competent authority for any pensionary benefits not extended. No costs. ¶¶30

S.Ponmozhi Vs the Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on the promotion/seniority claim; petitioner left free to approach the competent authority for any pensionary benefits not extended. No costs.

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the panel list dated 04.10.2011 and promotion order dated 04.11.2011 (Se.Mu.Order No. A4/6463/2011) issued by the 1st respondent should be quashed and the petitioner promoted to the post of Foreman from 1986 with seniority fixed at Serial No.19, and consequently to Technical Assistant at Serial No.12.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations; no costs awarded. The promotion/seniority claim was not adjudicated on merits.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Noting that the petitioner has already attained superannuation, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief if any pensionary benefits have not been extended (recorded within the counsel-submission paragraph and adopted at disposal).¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 (Certiorari Mandamus) disposed of by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (K. Surender, J.) on 08-04-2026. Petitioner S. Ponmozhi, who entered the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department as a Helper in 1979 and was later promoted as Chargeman, sought quashing of the panel list dated 04.10.2011 and promotion order dated 04.11.2011 (Se.Mu.Order No. A4/6463/2011) issued by the 1st respondent, claiming promotion to Foreman from 1986 with seniority at Serial No.19 and consequently to Technical Assistant at Serial No.12, alleging that junior respondents 2 and 3 were promoted without adherence to the prescribed procedure and without preparation of a proper panel, despite earlier Tribunal and High Court directions to consider his representation. The Court, noting the petitioner has attained superannuation, disposed of the petition observing that if any pensionary benefits have not been extended, he may approach the competent authority; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 20105 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 20105 of 2012

S.Ponmozhi

..Petitioner(s)

The Director Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Velachery, Chennai 42

¶10

S. Chandrasekaran

¶11

T.Manoharan

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records of panel lists dt 4.10.2011 in Se.Mu. Order No. A4/6463/2011 and promotion order in Se.Mu.Order No. A4/6463/2011dt 4.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent respectively and quash the same and consequentially issue direction directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Foreman right from 1986 by fixing the petitioner seniority as Serial No.19, in the Foreman seniority list published by the 1st respondent in his reference No.A7/2981/89 dt 16.10.1990 and thereafter consequentially promote the petitioner to the post of Technical assistant by fixing the petitioner in the serial No.12 of the Technical Assistant Seniority list published by the 1st respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr,R.Marudhachalamurthy

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 20105 of 2012

¶18

For Respondent(s):

¶19

Dr.S.Suriya AGP for R1

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings and for a consequential direction to grant promotion to the petitioner on par with his juniors, with all attendant benefits.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered service as a Helper in the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department in the year 1979 and was subsequently promoted as Chargeman. The petitioner claims entitlement to promotion to the post of Foreman based on seniority. However, the second and third respondents, who are juniors to the petitioner, were promoted without adherence to the prescribed procedure and without preparation of a proper panel. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal and thereafter, this Court, wherein a direction was issued to consider the petitioner’s representation. Despite such directions, the first respondent issued the impugned panel and promotion orders in the year 2011 without extending the benefits to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Writ petition has been filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was aged about 57 years at the time of filing of the Writ Petition in the year

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 20105 of 2012

¶27

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to call for the final panel list dated 04.10.2011 and the consequential promotion order and to quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of

¶28

Foreman with effect from 1986 by fixing his seniority appropriately.

¶29

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already attained superannuation and is not aware whether all eligible pensionary benefits have been extended. If any pensionary benefits have not been extended to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief.

¶30