Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. Vinod Kumar, J
K.Sumathi – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's service history and penalty completion by crucial date. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on par non-receipt not attributable to employee. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. eligibility for promotion post-penalty; employer's duty for par. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ allowed; quash exclusion and direct promotion. (Para 13) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings dated 04.02.2019 and memo dated 12.02.2020 relating to the preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the panel year 2019-2020 to the extent it had excluded the name of the petitioner for being included therein as eligible for promotion and to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer on par with her colleagues with all attendant benefits including pay fixation, arrears, seniority and other benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she had joined the services of t
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
