Temporary work arrangements or in-charge positions do not confer the right to claim promotion on par with juniors, and regular promotions should be granted following the rules and procedures.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent issued in letter Roc.No.33041/2012/C1-1, dated 23.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his Juniors in the category of Selection Grade with effect from 09.11.2009 and to revise the pensionary benefits from 30.06.2010.)

The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion on par with his juniors on the fixation of pay is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1971 in the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service and promoted as Assistant in the year 1986. Subsequently, he was promoted as Superintendent in the year 1996 and Manager during the year 2004. The petitioner was appointed by transfer of service as Municipal Commissioner Grade II in the year 2007 and the next avenue for promotion was to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I, which was given to the writ petitioner on 19.03.2008. However, the further promotion to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner was not granted to the writ petitioner which was granted to his Juniors A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan on 09.11.2009. Thus, the petitioner claims that he is also entitled to get notional promotion on par with his Juniors A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan with effect from 09.11.2009 with all attendant benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the seniority list drawn by the respondents and accordingly the petitioner was placed above the said A.Arumugam and K.V.Balakrishnan and therefore, the petitioner is senior to other two Juniors. The two Juniors were elevated to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade I on 09.11.2009 and the petitioner was not considered for the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner and thus the petitioner was improperly denied promotion to the higher post. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his case for grant of notional promotion with all attendant benefits. Earlier, writ petitioner filed W.P.No.17992 of 2013 with a prayer for direction to consider the petitioner-s representation dated 30.07.2012 and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents issued impugned order in proceedings dated 23.07.2014 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. Thus, again the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of the opinion that once the juniors were promoted to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner with effect from 09.11.2009 and during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in service and working as Municipal Commissioner Grade-I, the said benefit is to be extended to the writ petitioner also by notionally promoting him, since he has already reached the age of superannuation. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010, and thus the petitioner requested the authorities to grant notional promotions and mandatory benefits.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that those juniors were promoted only on work arrangement basis and they were not gradually promoted to the post of Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner by drawing a panel and by following procedures as contemplated. When the authorities, considering the administrative exigencies in a particular post, allowed the juniors to work as Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner on work arrangement basis, the said work arrangement cannot provide any right to the seniors to claim promotion on par with the juniors. It was only an ad-hoc arrangement/promotion granted to the juniors of the petitioner and such ad-h