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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner : Mr.Bharath Kumar

for M/s.Arumugaraja

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian (TANGEDICO)

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

K.Palanivelu

101

D.Raju

117

K.Aruldoss

145

(Selection Level

Seniority)

le.

(Helper Level Seniority)

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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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