The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the claim for promotion was unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Engineer from 02.09.2007.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to order passed by the 3rd respondent in /I/L2/NePe/25112-15/11/Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation /12 dated 13.03.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant Engineer from 02.09.2007 with all benefits and to pay arrears of salary.)

Common Order

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent-The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Division and consequently seeks for a direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant Engineer from 02.09.2007.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner joined service in the respondent Transport corporation as company trainee in 1993. His service was regularized as Junior Engineer with effect from 02.09.1995. In the year 1994 Cherran Transport was bifurcated and new transport corporation was formed and due to the bifurcation and subsequent merger, the petitioner''s promotion was affected and the petitioner got his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on 01.05.2003 against his entitlement for promotion on 02.09.2001.

3. It is further averred by the petitioner that after completion of 12 years service as Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer, the employees were given the benefit of Senior Assistant Engineer’s scale of pay. Since the petitioner became Junior Engineer on 02.09.1995, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2003, therefore, in the year 2007, he ought to have been given the Senior Assistant Engineer’s scale of pay.

4. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents. Since the respondents did not extend the said benefit to him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25115 of 2011 and as per the order of this court dated 01.11.2011, his representation was considered by the 3rd respondent, however, the 3rd respondent rejected the same, hence, filed this writ petition seeking for the above said relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons for rejection of the representation of the petitioner that he was not having heavy vehicle driving licence and for the reasons of punishment imposed on him, he was not entitled for promotion and that as per the 6th pay commission, the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner is unreasonable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had obtained Heavy Vehicle driving licence on 27.03.2003. So as per the statutory requirement, the writ petitioner is in possession of Heavy Vehicle Driving License.

7. The learned counsel also referred to promotion conferred to one R.Selvamani and A.Muruganantham, during 23.05.2012. However, citing the reason that time bound promotion was abolished on 01.01.2008, the respondents discriminated the petitioner’s case who was entitled to time bound promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Engineer on 02.09.2007 itself.

8. The learned counsel would further argue that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has not suffered any major penalty of punishment. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s service and efficiency has to be taken into consideration for conferring promotion as Senior Assistant Engineer.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion on completion of 10 years service as Assistant Engineer. Further after the implementation of 6th pay commission, the petitioner was awarded with special increment during the year 2013 for the completion of 10 years service. Therefore, citing the G.O. which was prevalent prior to the implementation of 6th pay commission cannot in any way helpful t