IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.1141 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 S.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Treasuries and Accounts Chennai 600 015. 2.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Finance (T&A) Department, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in Pro.Pdl.No.180/08/N2 dated 26.11.2008 of the first respondent and to quash the same in so far as it relates to non-inclusion of the petitioner's name therein and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the said panel for the year 2008-2009 for promotion from the post of Superintendent to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer / Senior Superintendent approved in Pro.Pdl.No.180/08/N2 dated 26.11.2008 in the appropriate place in the said panel in accordance with his seniority and to promote the petitioner as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.Shivashanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R
The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department in the year 1976 and was transferred to Treasuries and Accounts Department in the year 1979. He was promoted as Accountant in the year 1984 and later, he was further promoted as Superintendent in the year 2001. From the year 2001 to 30.04.2007, he worked as Superintendent in District Treasuries and also in Regional Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts. He worked in District Treasuries for many years, which fact is not in dispute. By an order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, he was transferred and posted in the Sub-Treasury Office, Chengalpet as Additional Sub-Treasury Officer and he worked there from 11.05.2007.
2.The first respondent has issued the panel of Sub-Treasury Officer/Superintendent, who are fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer / Senior Superintendent for the year 2008-2009 vide his proceedings in Proc.Pdl.180/08/N2 dated 26.11.2008. However, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said panel. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name should be included in the panel prepared for promotion and he should be promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer / Senior Superintendent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per Rule 4 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Treasuries and Accounts Subordinate Service, the Sub-Treasury Officer / Superintendent must have worked for a period of four weeks in the District Treasuries as Superintendent and for a period of two weeks as Sub-Treasury Officer in the Sub-Treasury office, within a period of two years from the date of joining the post of Sub-Treasury Officer / Superintendent. He further states that though the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent in the year 2001 itself and he worked for many years in the District Treasuries, he was not posted in the Sub-Treasury Office, for which, he should not be blamed. In fact, he stated in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit that various juniors were posted to Sub-Treasury and even the persons who do not require the possession of experience of a Sub-Treasury Officer for any promotion were given postings as Sub-Treasury Officer for the reasons best known to the respondents. Therefore, when the Department posted him as a Sub-Treasury Officer in the Sub-Treasury Office by an order dated 30.04.2007 only, the Department now cannot say that he did not work in the Sub-Treasury Office within two years of his promotion as Sub-Treasury Officer / Superintendent.
4.I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The learned Government Advocate argued based on his instructions.
5.The learned Government Advocate does not dispute the aforesaid rule. Further, he strenuously argues that the petitioner did not have the two weeks experience of Sub-Treasury Officer as prescribed under the Rules within two years of his appointment as Superintendent.
6.However, such an argument is not acceptable to me. When the petitioner was not posted as Sub-Treasury Officer within two years of his appointment, it is not his fault. On that score, he should not be denied the promotion when his juniors were given promotion. It is also admitted that when the panel was drawn vide proceedings dated 26.11.2008 of the first respondent, he had more than two weeks experience as a Sub-Treasury Officer working in the office of the Sub-Treasury office. There is no reason for not including the petitioner’s name in the panel prepared for promotion. Therefore, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to include the petitioner’s name at the appropriate place in the impugned panel prepared for promotion and to the post of Senior Superintendent / Assistant Treasury Officer he should be promoted accordingly.
7.Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to include the petitioner’s name at the appropriate place in the impugned panel prepared for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent / Assistant Treasury Officer and he should be promoted accordingly. The said exercise has to be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
TK
To
1.The Director of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai 600 015.
2.The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Finance (T&A) Department,
Chennai 600 009