SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
L.Sridharan - Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chennai - Respondent
W.P.No.25498 of 2005
Decided On : 23-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.G.P.Arivuchudar
For the Respondent: Mrs.R.Gandhimathi Standing counsel for TWAD

Headnote:

Employment and Service matter - Post of Administrative Officer - Arrears of pay and allowances - Terminal benefits - Sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records connected to proceedings of respondent in Letter and quash same and further direct respondent to revise seniority of petitioner in post of Junior Assistant, Assistant and Superintendent and consequently promote the petitioner to post of Administrative Officer from date on which his juniors were promoted as Administrative Officers duly permitting petitioner to draw arrears of pay and allowances and all terminal benefits - Held, If plea of petitioner is accepted, the consequential relief of notional benefits including promotion and other attendant benefits can be conferred on petitioner. However, such notional benefit no doubt shall be taken into account only for the purpose of pensionable and other retiral benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled to, as per the relevant regulations - Writ petition is disposed of

ORDER :

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records connected to the proceedings of the respondent in Letter No.24025/A2/SC/HO/2003, dated 14.05.2003 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant, Assistant and Superintendent and consequently promote the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer from the date on which his juniors were promoted as Administrative Officers duly permitting the petitioner to draw arrears of pay and allowances and all terminal benefits.

2. The respondent TWAD Board was constituted from 14.04.1971 and accordingly, various employees, who had been in the erstwhile PWD Department, had been brought to the TWAD Board, i.e., Tamil Nadu Water supply and Drainage Board. Accordingly, the petitioner as Junior Assistant had been appointed or brought to the TWAD Board with effect from 17.07.1971. Though the petitioner initially was appointed as such in PWD on 20.09.1967 and had been working there, but he was brought to the TWAD Board only w.e.f., 17.07.1971, therefore his probation was treated from that date and he completed the same by 17.07.1973.

3. Thereafter for the further promotion, the Accountant test is a must, which a Junior Assistant must have passed and after qualifying the same only, he would be considered for further promotion, which the petitioner has successfully completed in May 1974, for which result was published in August 1974.

4. However, the petitioner's name had not been included in the panel for promotion for the Financial Year 1975-76. Even though in the said financial year panel of 1975-76, those who have completed the Accountant Test who have written the same either in May 1974 or November 1974 were included, the petitioner though had written the examination and become successful in August 1974, whose name had not been included in the 1975-76 panel because of which his promotion had been delayed.

5. Even though the petitioner on regular basis had been promoted as Assistant, w.e.f. 07.08.1975 and Superintendent with effect from 04.07.1985, his further promotion to the post of Administrative Officer had not been effected or could not be given effect to because of the belated promotion, he earned in the feeder categories, for which the petitioner attribute reasons on the respondents in not including his name in the panel for the financial year 1975-76 despite the fact that, the petitioner successfully completed the Accountant Test by writing the examination in May 1974, for which the result was published in August 1974.

6. When these factors were brought to the notice of the respondent and a representation was given, that was rejected by passing the impugned order, dated 14.05.2003. Therefore challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Heard, Ms.G.P.Arivuchudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has reiterated the aforesaid facts and would submit that, in the panel for financial year 1975-76, the name of the petitioner ought to have been included, but wrongly it has not been included, even though she has qualified to be included, since he has completed successfully the Account Test in May 1974, for which result was published in August 1974. Therefore the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek indulgence of this Court to quash the order and remand the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration.

8. Per contra, Mrs.R.Gandhimathi, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, by relying upon the instruction of the respondent as well as by relying upon the reasons stated in the impugned order would contend that, though the petitioner had been brought to the TWAD Board as regular employee w.e.f. 17.07.1971, for further promotion since it was a necessity or essential to complete the Accountant Test, which the petitioner had admittedly completed only in August 1974, therefore his nam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top