IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.34076 OF 2006 R.Arumugam .. Petitioner Versus Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. .. Respondent PRAYER : This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.6645 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the respondent herein in G.O.(D)No.167, Revenue (E.III(1) Department, dated 30.04.1998, quash the said order and issue consequential directions to the respondent herein to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Tahsildars for Tiruchirapalli District for the year 1994, approved by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, in his Pro.Pdl.(A2)697/94 dated 30.06.1995, in the appropriate place therein, grant him promotion as Tahsildar with retrospective effect from the date when his immediate junior A.Arputham (Sl.No.42 therein) was promoted as Tahsildar, with consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondent : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R
The Original Application in O.A.No.6645 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner was employed as Assistant in the composite Tiruchirapalli District Revenue Unit. He was not included in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990. He approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) by filing Original Application in O.A.No.2459 of 1992. One Mr.Anbalagan, who was also not included in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars in Perambalur District, approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application in O.A.No.2334 of 1992. Some other persons, who are also similarly situated like the petitioner and Mr.Anbalagan, approached the Tribunal by filing a batch of Original Applications. All those Original Applications were disposed on 02.07.1993 directing the respondent to include their names at an appropriate place in the panel for Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990.
3.Based on the said order, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration issued a proceedings dated 02.11.1995 to include the concerned persons in the respective panel for Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990.
4.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli issued a proceedings dated 12.12.1995 including the name of the petitioner in the panel for Deputy Tahsildars of composite Tiruchirappalli District Revenue Unit of the year 1990, just above the name of one Mr.R.Arputham, who is the immediate junior to the petitioner.
5.Mr.R.Arputham and other juniors who were originally found place in the 1990 panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars were included in the panel for Tahsildars, Tiruchirapalli District Revenue Unit for 1994. But, the petitioner was not included in the 1994 panel for Tahsildars.
6.Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Government through proper channel with a request to relax Rules 7(b) and 8(a) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (in short “Rules”) to give necessary relaxation in respect of deficiency in the period of probation as Deputy Tahsildar and also in the requisite training. He also made a representation to include his name in the panel of Tahsildars of the year 1994 just above the said Mr.R.Aruputham.
7.The District Collector, recommended the same to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration in his proceedings dated 15.02.1996 to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Tahsildars of the year 1994 just above Mr.R.Arputham. The said proposal of the District Collector was recommended to the Government by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in his letter dated 17.10.1997.
8.Since the Government failed to pass orders, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.2176 of 1998 before the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal passed an order on 12.03.1998 directing the Government to pass orders on the request made by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks.
9.The respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.167, Revenue [Est.III (1)] Department, dated 30.04.1998 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that he was retired from service on 31.07.1996 and therefore, the relaxation under Rules 7(b) and 8(a) of the Rules could not be made in the case of retired employees.
10.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.6645 of 1998 (W.P.No.34076 of 2006) praying to quash the aforesaid impugned G.O.(D) No.167, Revenue [Est.III (1)] Department, dated 30.04.1998 and for a consequential direction to include his name in the panel for Tahsildars for Tiruchirapalli District Revenue Unit of the year 1994 as approved by the District Collector in his proceeding dated 30.09.1995 at an appropriate place and to promote him retrospectively with effect from the date on which his immediate junior Mr.R.Arputham was promoted as Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.
11.Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
12.The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. The respondent seeks to sustain the impugned order on the sole ground that the petitioner was retired from service and therefore, he could not seek to include his name in the panel for Tahsildars of the year 1994 and consequent promotion after his retirement.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is identically situated like Mr.Anbalagan, who was also covered by the order dated 02.07.1993 in O.A.Nos.2307 of 1992 etc. batch. Mr.Anbalagan, who belongs to Perambalur District was included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildars of the year 1994 though he was also brought to the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990 pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, as stated above, in the year 1995. The non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel for Deputy Tahsildars of 1990 was not his fault and since the Tribunal held in categorical terms that the concerned petitioners in the batch of Original Applications are entitled to be included in the panel of the year 1990, consequently the petitioner is also entitled to be included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildars of the year 1994 as in the case of Mr.Anbalagan.
14.It is also submitted that the respondent could not deny the benefit on the simple ground that the petitioner was retired from service, while one Mr.M.C.Sivaprahasam, a Tahsildar of the same District namely, Tiruchirapalli District Revenue Unit, who was retired from service on 31.07.1988, was included in the panel for District Collectors for the year 1981 and District Revenue Officer from 01.09.1986 as per the order of this Court dated 03.10.1988 in W.P.No.1311 of 1988 and the order dated 17.02.1993 in O.A.No.1634 of 1991 respectively.
15.The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, seeks to sustain the impugned order relying on the reply affidavit.
16.I have considered the submissions made on either side. It is admitted by the respondent in the reply affidavit that Mr.Anbalagan was similarly situated like that of the petitioner. It is also admitted that in the case of Mr.Anbalagan, the respondent issued G.O.(D) No.21, Revenue (G) Department, dated 13.01.1997 relaxing the Rules 7(b) and 8(a) of the Rules in favour of Mr.Anbalagan and thereby he was included in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars fit for promotion to the post of Tahsildars of the year 1994. Since the petitioner is also similarly situated as that of Mr.Anbalagan, the respondent could not deny the similar benefit on the sole ground that the petitioner was retired from service. Had the petitioner was included correctly in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990, the problem could not have arisen. The non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner as well as Mr.Anbalagan in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars of the year 1990 was only due to the mistake committed by the Department and not due to the mistake of the petitioner.
17.Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Mr.M.C.Sivaprahasam, even after his retirement, he was included in the panel of Deputy Collectors and District Revenue Officer. In fact, the same is admitted in para 10 of the reply affidavit, which is extracted here-under:
“10.Regarding the averments made in ground (c) (d) (e) of the original application, it is submitted that in case of Thiru M.C.Sivaprahasam, a Tahsildar of Tiruchirappalli District Revenue Unit, whose name was included in the list of Deputy Collectors for 1981 and District Revenue Officer from 1.9.86, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.1311/88, dated 3.10.88 and that of the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.1634/91 dated 17.2.93 respectively even though he had retired from service on 31.7.88. this case pertains to the composite Tiruchirappalli district.”
18.For the reasons stated above, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.167, Revenue [E.III(1) Department, dated 30.04.1998 is quashed, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The respondent is directed to issue necessary orders relaxing Rules 7(b) and 8(a) of the Rules, as done in the case of Mr.Anbalagan, as recommended in the letter Rc.Ser.III(2)/17756/96, dated 17.10.1997 of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to consequently promote the petitioner as Tahsildar, from the date on which his immediate junior Mr.R.Arputham was promoted. However, it is made clear that such promotion is a notional one and the petitioner is entitled to get only notional benefits. It is needless to state that the notional benefit pursuant to the notional promotion would also result in the revision of pension.
19.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
11.01.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
TK
To
The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK
W.P.No.34076 of 2006
11.01.2010