Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. No.3823 of 2001 and WMP Nos.5419 and 5420 of 2001 and WVMP No.18859 of 2001 and WPMP No.259 of 2002 K.Srinivasan …Petitioner Vs
1. The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Villupuram – 605 602.
3. Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Workers' Federation, Registration No.2970 (Recognised), Villupuram, rep. by its Secretary, Mr.N.Balaraman, Vandimedu T.N.E.B. Colony, Villupuram – 605 602.
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 13.03.2002 in WPMP No.9881 of 2002)
… Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Memo No.002139/016/Adm2/A1/F.15A/2001 dated 19.01.2001 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant notional promotion to the petitioner for the post of Commercial Inspector/Line Inspector with effect from 27.12.1999, with all consequential and attendant benefits including backwages.
For Petitioner : Mr.Bharath Kumar for M/s.Arumugaraja For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian Standing Counsel ------------
O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed to the post of Helper in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) and posted in the Electricity Distribution Circle (EDC) at Cuddalore. His appointment was along with four others who have been specifically referred to by the petitioner qua the fixation of seniority and they are K.Palanivelu, D. Raju, K.Aruldoss and Munnusamy. Normally, it would have been appropriate had the petitioner arrayed the aforesaid persons as respondents in this Writ Petition. He has however choose not to do so and I am, at this distance of time, also not inclined to order their impleadment. Hence, I refer to them collectively as 'employees'. At the time of entry into service on 25.09.1987, their seniority fixed was on the basis of entrance tests and the seniority fixed was as follows:
| Cuddalore Circle | ||
| K.Srinivasan | 55 | (Selection Level Seniority) le. (Helper Level Seniority) |
| K.Palanivelu | 101 | |
| D.Raju | 117 | |
| K.Aruldoss | 145 |
2. It is thus an admitted position that the seniority of the petitioner was head and shoulders above the three at the time of appointment. Though the seniority of Munnusamy has not been provided, he was, at the time of recruitment, admittedly, also placed after the petitioner.
3. The Revenue District of South Arcot came to be bifurcated for administrative convenience with effect from 17.06.1982, into Cuddalore EDC and Villupuram EDC. In line with the usual practice, the employees were extended the option to either remain in the EDC to which they had been recruited originally or to transfer to the other, bifurcated EDC. The employees chose to transfer to the Villupuram EDC on 01.11.1989, whereas the petitioner chose to remain with the parent EDC itself.
4. Guidelines dated 19.07.1989 had been issued by the Chief Engineer, TNEB indicating that an uniform policy be adopted in the transfer of employees against their willingness during bifurcation and these guidelines are referred to by the petitioner. However, nothing really turns upon the same in deciding the question that arises for resolution in this matter.
5. Briefly put, the petitioner questions the fixation of his seniority lower to that of the employees at the time of his exercising the option to be transferred from Cuddalore to Villupuram EDC on 12.07.1994. Upon his transfer on
29.07.1994, the fixation of seniority in the Villpuram EDC was as follows:
| Date | Name | Seniority List |
| 20.09.1993 | K.Srinivasan | 803 |
| 30.09.1992 | K.Palanivelu | 632 |
| 30.09.1992 | D.Raju | 783 |
| 04.06.1992 | K.Aruldoss | 745 |
| 04.06.1992 | Munnuamy | 616 |
6. Thus, as against the original seniority wherein the petitioner was placed far above the employees, the seniority of the petitioner came to be fixed at seniority No.803, below the four others. This come to be questioned repeatedly by the petitioner who made several representations and objections for re-fixation of seniority above that of the employees in Villupuram. His case hinges on Regulation 97 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and Leave Regulations Manual (in short 'Regulations') governing the question of seniority and reading as follows:
97. SENIORITY:
(a) The seniority of a person in a class of service, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board or other appointing authority, as the case may be. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his Seniority.
Provided that the seniority of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) / (Civil) / (Mechanical) recruited both by Internal Selection and direct recruitment in the ratio of 1: 1 in a particular calendar year shall be fixed in the following cyclic order:
(1) Internal Selection (2) Direct Recruitment (b) The transfer of a person from the category or grade in a class of service to another category or grade in the same class of service carrying the same pay or scale
