Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, Dwarka, New Delhi & Others – Appellants
Versus
G. Athipathi, Manager (Technical), Regional Office, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 11060 of 2021 & W.M.P. No. 11701 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Deputation - Promotion - National Highways Authority of India Act, 1996 - Circular dated 22.05.2017 - Clause 6 - National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 - Clause No. 15(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the petitioner to promote the applicant as Deputy General Manager (Technical) with effect from 27.10.2017 with all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the circular dated 22.05.2017 clearly stated that deputation service should be considered for promotion, and there was no error in the decision-making process of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deputation service rendered by the applicant should be considered as regular service for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the circular was clear and unambiguous in stating that deputation service should be taken into consideration for promotion, and there was no requirement for the person to continue to be on deputation for the service to be considered.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Writ Petitioners were directed to implement the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorai, calling upon the records of the 2nd Respondent in OA/310/01633/2020 and quash the Order dated 30.12.2020 passed in the aforesaid proceedings.)
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
1. This petition challenges the proceedings of the 2nd respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.310/01633/2020 dated 30.12.2020.
2. The case of the 1st respondent/applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is that he was initially working as a Assistant Engineer in the service of Government of Tamil Nadu. He was taken on deputation as Manager (Technical) by the writ petitioners on 21.05.2008. He worked continuously for a period of six years till 13.06.2014. An advertisement was issued by the writ petitioners on 15.03.2014 calling for direct recruitment to the post of Manager (Technical). The 1st respondent applied for the said post on 11.04.2014. On the request of the State of Tamil Nadu, he was repatriated from the writ petitioners'' service to that of the State of Tamil Nadu on 13.06.2014. Subsequently, to the applied post, the 1st respondent undertook a written examination on 23.08.2014 and was selected on 26.08.2015. He joined the service of the writ petitioners on 26.08.2015 as Manager (Technical).
3. The post of Manager (Technical) is the feeding grade for that of Deputy General Manager. This is as per the existing rules of recruitment of the year 2013. The 1st respondent applied for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical). This was denied by the writ petitioners on the ground that he had joined service only on 26.08.2015. It was the grievance of the 1st respondent, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, that his service previously rendered on deputation from 2008 to 2014 in the post of Manager (Technical) was not considered by the writ petitioners and hence, he gave a representation to the writ petitioners. That was rejected by an order dated 05.11.2019, which he challenged in O.A.No.1633 of 2019.
4. The Tribunal, after issuance of notice and receipt of the counter from the writ petitioners, allowed the original application. It relied upon a circular issued by the writ petitioners that the deputation service rendered in the post of Manager (Technical) should be taken into consideration as regular service for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical). It further directed the writ petitioners to promote the applicant as Deputy General Manager (Technical) with effect from 27.10.2017 with all consequential benefits. Challenging the same, the writ petitioners are before this Court.
5. Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners had sought to persuade us that the circular issued by the National Highway Authority of India dated 22.05.2017 was inapplicable to the 1st respondent. He wanted us to read “Clause 6” of the said circular as applicable only to persons who were in service, on deputation, on the date on which the promotion opened and that it would not be applicable to persons who were repatriated from National Highways Authority of India to their parent body. For ready reference, Clause 6 of the said circular is extracted as hereunder:-
“6. It has been decided to treat the deputation service (if any) rendered on the post of Manager (Technical) in NHAI as regular service for the purpose of promotion to the post of DGM (Technical). It has also been decided that the Manager (Technical), when found suitable for promotion, shall be promoted to the post of DGM (Technical) notionally with effect from the date they fulfil the eligibility criteria for the promotion, but not before the date of absorption and the date of promotion of applicants in OA 3696/2014 and 3762/2014 i.e. dated 29.12.2014, subject to recommendations of the Selection Committee. The actual promotion shall take effect from the date of assumption of charg
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the circular dated 22.05.2017 clearly stated that deputation service should be considered for promotion, and the Court upheld the decision of ....
Promotion eligibility requires continuous service without gaps; prior service on deputation does not count if repatriated before direct recruitment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees on probation can be considered to be holding the post on a regular basis for the purpose of promotion eligibility, and their service....
Experience gained during deputation should be considered for promotion eligibility.
Experience gained on deputation is valid for promotion eligibility assessment.
Prior service rendered before an inter-state transfer is valid for promotion eligibility, even if seniority is lost, as established by previous court rulings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the petitioner's service in BSF and NIA for eligibility to the post of ASP, based on the equivalence of his rank in BSF and NIA,....
Accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. The right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
