IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23/02/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Writ Petition No.27449 of 2005
M.Ranganathan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Local Fund) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Local Cund Audit,
Fourth Floor, Kuralagam,
Chennai 108. ... Respondents
This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of
O.A.No.3300 of 2003 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a
prayer to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first
respondent passed in letter No.46574/L.F./98 dated 29.5.20 03 and set aside
the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix the salary and
seniority of the petitioner with effect from 25.6.1984 in the post of Junior
Assistant and to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the next
promotional post in the said seniority with all monetary and attendant
benefits.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathiravan
^For Respondents : Mrs.D.Malarvizhi,
Government Advocate
:O R D E R
In this petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the
Government in letter No.46574/L.F./98 dated 29.5.2003 refusing promotion to
the petitioner as Junior Assistant from 25.6.1984 and for consequential
directions.
2. The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed
as Record Clerk on 10.9.1975 and he was given promotion only on 23.6.199 5
even though he was entitled to get promoted as early as on 25.6.198 4. The
learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.42 P&AR Department, dated 22.1.1981 and ordered that 10% vacancies
in the post of Junior Assistant in all the departments shall be filled up by
promotion from among the Record Clerks working in the respective departments.
As per the said Government Order, petitioner claims that he should have been
given promotion as Junior Assistant from 1984 instead of 1995.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order of the
State Administrative Tribunal made in T.A.No.552 of 1991 dated 26.6.1992
wherein the Tribunal considered a similar request of the Record Clerks, who
were denied promotion under the 10% vacancy in the post of Junior Assistants
in HR&CE Department. The Tribunal in the said order held that the Record
Clerks working in that particular department are entitled to get promotion in
the 10% vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant and further ordered that the
petitioners who were denied promotion are entitled to pay fixation on the
basis of such seniority dating from 25.6.1984 and for further promotion on the
basis of such seniority subject to drawal of pay from the date of appointment
as Junior Assistant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited another
order of the State Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.Nos.3570 and 3985 of
1994 dated 2.8.1994 in which the Tribunal ordered that G.O.Ms.No.42 having
been issued to give promotional opportunity to the Record Clerks working in
the department, the petitioners therein are entitled to get due promotion at
the appropriate time within the quota and the action of the department in not
giving due promotion is total lack of equitable approach in the matter and
discrimination in favour of the temporary incumbents.
5. The learned Government Advocate argued that in view of
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.996 P&AR Department, dated 22.9.1984, the persons
temporarily appointed as Junior Assistants in all the departments were given
permanent appointment and therefore there was no vacancy for giving promotion
to the Record Clerks and consequently the petitioner was given promotion as
Junior Assistant in the year 1995.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate.
7. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 22.1.1981 makes it clear that
10% of the vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant in all the departments
shall be filled up only by promoting the Record Clerks in that particular
department. When the said Government Order is applicable to the Local Fund
Audit Department as well, there is no justification on the part of the
respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner, for which he is entitled
to from 25.6.1984. The said position is also made clear in the report of the
Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai-18 addressed to the Deputy Secretary,
Finance Department, Chennai-9 in Na.Ka.No.32310/Service 11(5)/2001, dated
22.1.2002. In the said report the Director of Local Fund Audit recommended to
the Government for giving promotion to the petitioner from 25.6.1984 along
with four other persons.
8. In the impugned order, the Government, before considering the
above said report has chosen to state that the order passed in T.A.No.55 2 of
1991 is applicable only to HR&CE Department and the same is not applicable to
petitioner’s Local Fund Audit Department. The said reasoning is devoid of any
merit. In view of my finding that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.42 P&AR
Department, dated 22.1.1984 is applicable to all the departments, there is no
force in the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the benefit is
not applicable to the Local Fund Audit Department.
9. Consequently the impugned order is unsustainable and the same
is set aside. The petitioner shall be given seniority as Junior Assistant
from 25.6.1984 without monetary benefit. He is also entitled to get all
subsequent promotions based on the said promotion as Junior Assistant from
25.6.1984.
The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.
vr
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Finance (Local Fund) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Local Cund Audit,
Fourth Floor, Kuralagam,
Chennai 108.