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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V. Ramamoorthy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP No. 26905 of 2015
Decided On : 25-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Neethidurai, Advocate. For the Respondents: L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader.

Entitlement to selection grade promotion and bonus increment is contingent upon fulfilling the prescribed service conditions and complying with relevant government orders.

Headnote:

Bonus Increment - Selection Grade Promotion - G.O.Ms.No.210, P&AR (S) Department, dated 11.03.1987; Government Letter Ms.No.168, P&AR (S) Department, dated 28.09.1999; G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (PC) Department, dated 01.06.2009; Government Letter No.63305/Pay Cell/2010-1, Finance (PC) Department, dated 08.11.2010 - The court discussed the entitlement for bonus increment and selection grade promotion in the context of the petitioner's service history, relinquishment of promotion, and the relevant government orders. The court emphasized the conditions for awarding selection grade in the higher post based on service in the lower post and the implications of revised pay scales on the award of selection/special grade.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought selection grade promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant and the grant of bonus increment. The court was presented with the petitioner's service history, including relinquishment of promotion and subsequent retirement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's relinquishment of promotion in the past and failure to complete 10 years of service in the post of B.T. Assistant rendered him ineligible for selection grade promotion. The court also noted that the petitioner had been enjoying the benefits of bonus increment despite an erroneous sanction.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to selection grade promotion and bonus increment, considering his service history, relinquishment of promotion, and compliance with government orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's relinquishment of promotion and failure to complete the required service period made him ineligible for selection grade promotion. The court also emphasized the implications of revised pay scales on the award of selection/special grade.

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 for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the order passed by the third respondent in Ref.No.O.Mu.No. 11944/AA5/2014 dated 30.03.2015 and quash the same to the extent of cancellation of bonus increment and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the selection grade promotion in the post of B.T. Assistant from 01.10.2008.)

1. The order of rejection dated 30.03.2015, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for Selection Grade promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant from 01.10.2008, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Panchayat Union Primary School, Puthupalayam, Cuddalore District, on 14.11.1977. The petitioner states that he continued as a Secondary Grade Teacher for about 30 years continuously and he was stagnated in the said post beyond the period of 30 years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for stagnation increment/bonus increment as per the Government Order. The petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 14.07.2008. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of Selection Grade in the post of B.T. Assistant and the said benefit was also not granted. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner Mr.V.Ramamoorthy was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant and his services were regularised from 14.11.1977. He was consequently awarded Selection Grade and Special Grade in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher as on 14.11.1987 and 14.11.1997 respectively by the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore. Considering his qualifications and seniority, the petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) during the year 2001-2002, which he willingly relinquished temporarily for three years on 21.01.2002. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a stagnated employee.

4. An employee can be treated as stagnated employee if no promotion was granted to him. However, in the present case, the petitioner was granted promotion in the year 2001-2002 to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) and he had relinquished the promotion temporarily for the period of three years on 21.01.2002. An employee who relinquished the opportunity of promotion, cannot be treated as stagnated employee for the purpose of grant of bonus increment fixation or grant of Selection Grade in the post of B.T. Assistant. However, the petitioner availed the subsequent opportunity of chance of promotion and accepted the post of B.T. Assistant on 14.07.2008 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010.

5. The petitioner claimed Selection Grade to the post of B.T. Assistant. He has not completed 10 years of service in the post of B.T. Assistant. He has relinquished his promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant in the year 2001-2002 for a period of three years by submitting an application on 31.01.2002. Therefore, he was not considered as a stagnated employee in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on account of the fact that he relinguished his opportunity of promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant.

6. The petitioner himself has stated that he is continuously receiving the benefits of bonus increment. As per the judgment of this Court dated in WP No.22206 of 20098.2011, he was granted excess amount, which was sanctioned on erroneous basis. However, the said amount was not recovered from the petitioner and he is still enjoying the benefit. The erroneous sanction of bonus increment was not cancelled on account of the orders passed by this Court.

7. The petitioner, in the meanwhile not only withholding an excess increment, which is not rightfully his, as if it was not enough, the petitioner had approached the third respondent through the Headmaster wanting the Award of Selection Grade in the post of B.T. Assistant. The petitioner wants this

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