COMMON ORDER

There are three writ petitions. In all the three petitions, ELCOT is the common respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Respondents that the issue raised in all the writ petitions are interconnected. Thus, the writ petitions are disposed by a way of a common order.

2. Relief sought in the Writ Petitions:

i. The writ petition in W.P. No.13434 of 2010 was filed by Mr.Kameshwaran and Mr.Sekar, challenging G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 08.11.2006 IT (E-Gov.I) Department (for brevity “G.O.12”), and to direct the management of ELCOT to consider and promote the petitioners in terms of the Service Rules by placing the petitioners viz., Mr. S. Kameshwaran and Mr. A. Sekar in the appropriate place above their juniors interpolating the seniority list, grant all continuity and consequential benefits. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Mr.Sekar died and the counsel for the petitioner would submit that writ petition insofar as Mr. Sekar stands may be treated as having abated.

ii. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.9327 of 2008 was filed by Mr.Manirathnem, challenging the promotion given to Mrs.Girijaa Shri and Mr.Suresh Babu as Deputy Manager Grade II overlooking the fact that Mr.Manirathnem was already holding the post of Superintendent and that Mrs.Girijaa Shri, who was only an Assistant was directly promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Grade II and to direct the 1st respondent to consider the name of the petitioner and promote him as Deputy Manager-II with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted and to grant all the consequential benefits and arrears of salary.

iii. The writ petition in W.P.No.20575 of 2009 was filed by Mrs.Girijaa Shri, challenging the order dated 02.07.2009, whereby, she has been reverted to the post of Assistant with effect from 01.06.2003.

3. Brief Facts i. ELCOT, the respondent in all these writ petitions, had two Divisions viz., Corporate Office and Communication Division. The Communication Division merged with the Corporate Office and some of the employees were granted/opted VRS.

ii. The salary of the employees of Communication Division was paid on the basis of a wage settlement. With a view to bring them under the Government Pay Scale, G.O.12 was issued. Importantly G.O.12 provided for the following:

a) That the post along with incumbents shall be deemed to be transferred to the Perungudi Unit i.e., Corporate office with effect from 01.06.2003.

b) For the purpose of seniority and promotion, the two units viz., Corporate Office and Communication Division shall be treated as separate and distinct units.

c) The posts are deemed to be taken out of the wage settlement and shall be brought under the Service Rules.

d) Necessary amendments shall be made to the Service Rules with retrospective effect from 01.06.2003, subject to the approval by the Board and the Government.

4. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.13434 of 2010 submitted that Mr. Kameshwaran was employed as Assistant in the Corporate Division, in terms of seniority he was ranked No.1. Though G.O.12 dated 08.11.2006 provided for demarcation between the two units insofar as the seniority is concerned, Mrs.Girijaa Shri was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager Grade-II directly although she was an Assistant in Communication Division and ranked No. 39. It is submitted that promotion of Mrs.Girijaa Shri is contrary to G.O.12. Though there is a challenge to G.O.12, it is submitted that the prayer will be confined to ensure proper implementation of G.O.12.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents (ELCOT) that there was an anomaly insofar as implementation of G.O.12 initially, inasmuch as, there was merger of employees of the Communication Division with Perungudi employees, and promotions were not made in accordance with G.O.12 which provided for demarcation and segregation. Realising the said mistake, the anomaly was set right vide proceeding dated 02