Allowed¶51

K.Kunhali, S/o.Alavi, v. The Secretary to Governmennt

Madras HC2 Feb 2026WP/24034/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notional promotion; Junior Assistant; absorbed employee; Panchayat Union service reckoning; seniority; parity with similarly situated employees; pensionary benefits revision; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; Education Department; G.O. Ms. No. 857 dated 23.05.1981 provincialisation of local body staff; delay and laches; post-retirement representation; W.P. No. 13559 of 2006 (order dated 09.04.2012); superannuation 30.06.2012; Madras High School education department promotions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.02.2017 quashed; respondents to consider the petitioner for notional promotion as Junior Assistant from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential monetary benefits, and to revise his pensionary benefits accordingly, completing the exercise within three months of receipt of a copy of the order.

K.Kunhali, S/o.Alavi, Vs The Secretary to Governmennt — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to notional/retrospective promotion to the post of Junior Assistant from the date his juniors were promoted (claimed with effect from 15.03.1989), with consequential monetary and pensionary benefits. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since the Coordinate Bench order in W.P. No. 13559 of 2006 has attained finality and has been implemented by the respondents, the present petitioner, being similarly situated, is entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondents is quashed.

¶52

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for grant of notional promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted, together with all consequential monetary benefits, to revise his pensionary benefits arising out of such notional promotion, and to complete the exercise within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus. The petitioner, appointed as an Office Assistant in the Panchayat Union on 30.07.1974 and absorbed into the Education Department as a Government servant with effect from 01.06.1981 pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 857, Education Department, dated 23.05.1981, was promoted as Record Clerk (01.07.2005), Lab Assistant (03.01.2008) and Junior Assistant (24.08.2011), retiring on 30.06.2012. His request for notional promotion as Junior Assistant on par with juniors promoted before his retirement, with consequential revision of pensionary benefits, was rejected by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 498/A1/2016 (signed 14.02.2017); the State contended eligibility ran only from his 1987 school allotment and that the claim was barred by delay and laches. Following the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 13559 of 2006 (order dated 09.04.2012), which held that service rendered in the Panchayat Union must be reckoned with Education Department service for seniority and directed promotion consideration from the date juniors were promoted, and which had attained finality and been implemented, the Court held the petitioner entitled to the same benefit on parity, quashed the impugned order, and directed notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential monetary benefits, revision of pensionary benefits, compliance within three months.

¶1

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 24034 of 2017

K.Kunhali

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary to Government Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶12

The District Education Officer Gudalore, Nilgiri District.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 498/A1/ 2016 dated 02.2017 (Signed on 14.02.2017) and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to promote the Petitioner as Junior Assistant notionally on par with his Juniors (i.e.with effect from 1989 the date on which his juniors were promoted with all other service and monetary benefits in the light of the order passed in W.P.No. 13559/ 06 dated 09.04.2012and pass such suitable orders or other orders as this Honourable court.

¶15

Page1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶18

For Petitioner(s): M/s. R.S.Anandan For Respondent(s): Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari, G.A.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No. 498/A1/2016 dated 02.2017 (signed on 14.02.2017).

¶21

By the said order, the petitioner’s request for grant of retrospective

¶22

promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 15.03.1989 was rejected.

¶23

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Office Assistant in the Panchayat Union on 30.07.1974. Pursuant to the Government’s policy decision to provincialise local body staff, as per G.O. Ms. No. 857, Education Department, dated 23.05.1981, the petitioner was absorbed into the Education Department as a Government servant with effect from 01.06.1981. Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Clerk on 01.07.2005 and as Lab Assistant on 03.01.2008. In accordance with the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, he was further promoted as Junior Assistant on 24.08.2011. Subsequently, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2012.

¶24

Page2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶27

After retirement, the petitioner came to know that several of his juniors

¶28

in the feeder category had been promoted to the post of Junior Assistant prior to his retirement. Noticing this anomaly in seniority and promotion, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking notional promotion to the post of Junior Assistant on par with his juniors, along with consequential revision of pensionary benefits.

¶29

However, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2017, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s request. The said rejection is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principle that a senior is entitled to promotion on par with his juniors, if vacancies existed and juniors were promoted during the senior’s service tenure.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State. The materials placed on record were also perused.

¶31

In the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the State contended that though the petitioner was absorbed into Government service in 1981 pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 857, he was allotted to a school under the Education Department only in 1987. Hence, according to the State, his eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant has to be reckoned only from the date of such allotment, i.e., from 1987, and not from the date of initial absorption. It was further contended that the petitioner, having accepted subsequent promotions without

¶32

Page3 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶35

protest and having submitted his representation only after retirement, is guilty of delay and laches.

¶36

However, the materials placed in the Typed Set of Papers reveal that the petitioner had been submitting representations from 1981 onwards seeking rectification of seniority and promotion on par with his juniors. It is further submitted that similarly placed employees had approached this Court in W.P. No. 13559 of 2006, wherein this Court, by order dated 09.04.2012, considered the rights of absorbed employees. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment,

¶37

this Court observed as follows:

¶38

“ 11.No doubt, the petitioner has not challenged promotion granted to his juniors, whose particulars have been furnished in the supporting affidavit of this writ petition. At the same time, the services rendered by him, both in Panchayat Union ought not to have been ignored, by citing G.O.Ms.No.1924, Education, dated 04.12.1987. The contention of the respondents that the services rendered in Panchayat Union cannot be reckoned for seniority, is not tenable, in view of the fact that the petitioner continued in the Education Department. He cannot be treated as a deputationist, after induction. Termination of lien is a tripartite arrangement and without the consent of the Government Servant, it cannot be said that the petitioner and others who were inducted in Education Department, would lose all their rights accrued in the latter department. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that the petitioner

¶39

__________ Page4 of 8

¶40

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

¶41

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶42

had not sent to the parent department, and he has also withdrawn his option to revert. In such circumstances, without there being any order of being passed, the services rendered in the first department cannot be ignored.

¶43

12.The contention that the petitioner has completed SSLC and passed the required education qualifications for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, has not been refuted. As rightly contended that when promotions have been granted to his juniors, viz., Thiru.C.Rajendran, Thiru.Rooliraj, Thiru.Rangaraj, as Junior Assistants in the years 1992 and 1982 respectively, who have joined the Education Department only in the year 1985 and 1982 respectively, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered, as he is admittedly senior to them in the feeder category post. The contention that the petitioner has been promoted only as Record Clerk in the year 2002, and therefore not entitled to be promoted as Junior Assistant is not tenable. When the promotion has been granted to his juniors, before bifurcation, the same ought to have been applied, without ignoring the services rendered in panchayat services. If the same had been taken into consideration, the petitioner is fully eligible.

¶44

13.Once the Government have passed orders, inducting him in Education Department, the services rendered in Panchayat Union Schools, as Office Assistant, also ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the seniority. In such a view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Junior Assistant, from the date on which, his juniors were

¶45

__________ Page5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶48

promoted, with all service and monetary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner has retired from service and therefore, the retiral benefits also have to be revised subsequently.”

¶49

The Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that, for the

¶50

purpose of promotion, the service rendered in the Panchayat Union must be reckoned along with the service rendered in the Education Department for determining seniority. The Bench further clarified that once the Government issued orders inducting the staff into the Education Department as absorbed employees, the substantial and continuous service rendered in the Panchayat Union ought to be taken into account for seniority. Consequently, a direction was issued to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant from the date on which their juniors were promoted. As the said order has attained finality and has also been implemented by the respondents, the present petitioner, being similarly situated, is entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity.

¶51

In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed

¶52

and the impugned order passed by the respondents is hereby quashed, with the following directions:

¶53

Page6 of 8

¶54

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

¶55

WP No. 24034 of 2017

¶56

The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for

¶57

grant of notional promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted, together with all consequential monetary benefits. The respondents shall also revise the petitioner’s pensionary benefits arising out of such notional promotion. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58