Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
V. Vijayakumarasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P.No. 14092 of 2015
Decided on : 01-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M. Palani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: J. Ramesh, AGP.
The court established that notional promotion and other benefits cannot be claimed solely on the ground of delay due to administrative reasons, without evidence of malice or illegality on the part of the respondents.
Headnote:
Promotion - Notional Promotion - Rule 7(i) of the Tamilnadu Subordinate Service Rules - The court considered the petitioner's claim for notional promotion and other benefits arising from the delay in his promotion. The court analyzed various legal principles and precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major General H.M.Singh Vs. Union of India & another, and the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 594 of 2018, dated 19.03.2018 (Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Vs. Muthuirulappan & another). The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for notional promotion and other benefits cannot be considered on the ground of delay due to administrative reasons at the hands of the respondent Department and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought notional promotion and other monetary benefits from the date of 01.07.2010, claiming that the delay in his promotion was highly arbitrary and improper. The respondents argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons and not arbitrary or illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for notional promotion and other benefits arising from the delay in his promotion could not be considered on the ground of delay due to administrative reasons at the hands of the respondent Department.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who retired on superannuation, was entitled to notional promotion and consequential monetary benefits due to the delay in his promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim for notional promotion and other benefits could not be considered on the ground of delay due to administrative reasons, as there was no evidence of malice or illegality on the part of the respondents for the delay in finalizing the promotion panel.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 1st respondent letter (D).No. 62, dated 24.01.2014 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to accord notional promotion to the petitioner from the date of the petitioner's claim namely 01.07.2010 on which date the petitioner is fully eligible for the post of Joint Transport Commissioner and a clear vacancy existed and also direct the petitioner to give all other monetary benefit and other benefit arising out the post from 01.07.2010 and retirement benefits.)
The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to call for records of the 1st respondent letter (D).No. 62, dated 24.01.2014 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to accord notional promotion to the petitioner from the date of the petitioner's claim namely 01.07.2010 with all consequential monetary benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the Transport Department as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II on 15.11.1983 and subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner and posted at Erode on 13.06.2009. During the year 2010-2011, the second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent on 24.07.2010, stating that the estimated vacancy for the post of Joint Transport Commissioner for the year 2010-2011 has been calculated as three and requested the 1st respondent to approve the same. The 1st respondent after considering the future posts, has estimated as five and communicated the same to the 2nd respondent in their order dated 06.01.2011. In the said estimated vacancy, the petitioner was listed at sl.no.2. The 2nd respondent has prepared a seniority list on 12.09.2011. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was placed at sl.no.2. Even though there is no ban by the Government for recruitment/promotion, the 1st respondent, without any reason, has kept pending the promotion list till the superannuation of the petitioner i.e on 31.05.2014, which according to the petitioner is highly arbitrary, erroneous and improper. Hence, claiming notional promotion and other monetary benefits from the date of 01.07.2010, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent should have seen that when there is a clear cut vacancy arose between 2010-2011 as informed by the 2nd respondent, which has been subsequently enhanced to five as per proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 06.01.2011. The 1st respondent grossly erred in not taking any action based upon the proposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the 2nd respondent had recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner by observing that he is maintaining clean record of service, the 1st respondent had drawn a nil panel for the year 2010-2011, which is contrary to the very recommendation of the 2nd respondent dated 27.04.2010.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the 2nd respondent being head of the Department, rightly sent a proposal for the year 2010-2011 to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to say that nil panel is drawn for the year 2010-2011. The 1st respondent issued a letter dated 24.01.2014 blindly without looking into the earlier proposal sent by the 2nd respondent as well as his own letter dated 06.01.2011, in which the estimated vacancy was fixed as five for the year 2010-2011 for the post of Joint Transport Commissioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the petitioner's service, he sent a representation on 22.02.014 claiming his promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner. But, without considering the same, he was allowed to retire from service on 31.05.2014. Even after retirement, he sent representation
