Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
K. Rajendran & Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Chennai & Others - Respondents
WP. Nos. 20928, 20929 of 2011 and 20987 of 2012, 22354 of 2017, 15621 & 15625 of 2019 & WMP. Nos. 21627, 15519, 21622, 15510. 15511, 15514, 15517, 15522, 15621 of 2019
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Seniority - Writ Petitions - WP No.20928 of 2011, WP No.20929 of 2011, WP No.20987 of 2012, WP No.22534 of 2017, WP No.15621 of 2019, WP No.15625 of 2019 - Rule 36, Notification of Merger dated 3rd July, 2007 - The court referred to the Division Bench order in WP No.5969 of 2008 and discussed the conditions for a post to be considered promotional, principles for determining seniority, and the legality of the notification of merger.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the issues regarding merger and preparation of Combined Seniority List had already been decided by the Division Bench of the Court, and therefore, no further adjudication was needed. The court also noted that all consequential orders under challenge were passed in implementation of the order of the Division Bench in WP No.5969 of 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petitions seeking implementation of the orders of the Division Bench in WP No.5969 of 2008 were not entertainable. However, it stated that there was no impediment for the Competent Authorities to consider the cases of employees as per rules in force and based on their eligibility.
Issues: The court found that the issues regarding merger and preparation of Combined Seniority List had already been decided by the Division Bench of the Court, and therefore, no further adjudication was needed. It also addressed the implementation of the orders of the Division Bench in WP No.5969 of 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the Division Bench order in WP No.5969 of 2008 and discussed the conditions for a post to be considered promotional, principles for determining seniority, and the legality of the notification of merger.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were disposed of with the observation that there shall be no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
(Prayer: WP No.20928 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings A.No.3370/2011 dated 18.04.2011 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1988 based on his representations dated 16.09.2010, 23.02.2011 and 18.04.2011 in the combined cadre of Copyist and Typist in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
WP No.20929 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings A.No.3370/2011 dated 18.04.2011 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to refix the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1988 based on his representations dated 16.09.2010, 23.02.2011 and 18.04.2011 in the combined cadre of Copyist and Typist in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
WP No.20987 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in his proceedings A.No.43/2012 dated 28.02.2012 and quash the said order dated 28.02.2012 and consequently, direct the third respondent herein to give due promotion to the petitioners based on the seniority list drawn by the third respondent as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.5969 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008.
WP No.22534 of 2017 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records made in the impugned order of the third respondent in Dis.No.1587/2012 dated 21.03.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the Petitioner's Association Members in the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 i.e., at Rs.1025/- w.e.f. 01.06.1988 and consequently revise the present scale of pay with all consequential benefits.
WP No.15621 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in A.No.210/A/ 2018 dated 24.04.2019 and A.No.39/A/2019 dated 13.03.2019 on the file of the second respondent in respect of non-grant of promotion to the petitioner by fixing correct his correct seniority and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to refix the petitioner's original seniority on par with the persons, whose names are found in the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.No.39/A/2019 dated 13.03.2019 and to grant promotion to the petitioner in the respective posts upto the cadre of Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court along with the backwages for the corresponding period due to the petitioner.
WP No.15625 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in A.No.210/A/ 2018 dated 24.04.2019 and A.No.39/A/2019 dated 13.03.2019 on the file of the second respondent in respect of non-grant of promotion to the petitioner by fixing correct his correct seniority and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to refix the petitioner's original seniority on par with the persons, whose names are found in the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Salem in A.No.39/A/2019 dated 13.03.2019 and to grant promotion to the petitioner in the respective posts upto the cadre of Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court along with the backwages for the corresponding period due to the petiti
The court emphasized the conditions for a post to be considered promotional, principles for determining seniority, and the legality of the notification of merger.
The main legal point established is that seniority is determined based on the date of appointment, and retrospective promotion is essential for the grant of retrospective seniority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
A public servant has no right to claim seniority in the cadre to which he belongs, and the rules of business do not create or confer a right on a public servant to come and apply for a writ under Art....
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
An employee cannot be denied promotion and seniority due to the unjustified delay on the part of the government.
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
