Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.SOOSAI MARIAN versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.Soosai Marian v. The Managing Director - W.P.No.17663 of 2000 [2002] RD-TN 167 (15 March 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.03.2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ W.P.No.17663 of 2000

K.Soosai Marian .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Water Supply and

Drainage Board,

No.31, Kamarajar Salai,

Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

2. The Superintending Engineer,

Tamilnadu Water Supply and

Drainage Board,

Tanjore Circle,

No.5, V.O.C. Nagar,

Tanjore - 7. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner :Mr.A.Amalraj

For respondents :No appearance

: O R D E R



Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accord notional sanction for the petitioner's selection grade with effects from 13.7.1983 and special grade with effects from 13.7.1993 and consequently disburse the petitioner's monetary cash benefits from 13.7.1983 apart from re-fixing his pensionary benefits as per the revised rate with interest at the rate of 12 p.a. for the delayed payments.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the service on 18.1.1960 as Work Inspector in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering and Municipal Works Department in Tenkasi Sub-Division and thereafter, the said Department was converted as Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board with effects from 1.4.1971; that his service was regularised with effects from 1.4.1972 and thereafter on 13.7.1973, his service was upgraded as Junior Assistant by the T.W.A.D. Board Selection Committee and however, the said grade was also regularised w.e.f. 13.7.1973; that after completion of 10 years of service as Junior Assistant, his selection grade was due and was subsequently entitled for special grade after 10 years from the date of selection grade that was on 13.7.1993 to which he became entitled to pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.3.1984 and the operative portion of the proceedings reads as follows:- "All employees shall be put in the selection/special grade posts automatically at the end of completion of 10 years service whether they are qualified for promotion to a higher post or not."

3. The petitioner would further submit that his service upgradations and entitlement were not fixed by the respondents at the appropriate time on extraneous reasons, that was on 13.7.1983 as selection grade and on 13.7.1993 as special grade in the category of Junior Assistant and consequently, he has been put in heavy monetary loss with effects from 13.7.1983 and hence he made concomitant representations to the respondents requesting to order selection grade at the appropriate time and as a result, the second respondent, in his letter dated 21.1 2.1999, has rejected his grievances stating that he is not entitled for selection grade and special grade as he has not passed the requisite tests and further specifying that if any such grades had been sanctioned to anyone, such sanction does not stand as per the existing Rules; that the Government of Tamilnadu issued G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 7.8.1992 specifying that the criterion that one should possess the qualifications and pass the tests, if any prescribed for the next higher posts, need not be insisted upon for the movement of selection/ special grade; that it is pertinent to note that pursuant to the benefits provided to in the said G.O., one M.Selvamani and another D. Santhakumari, Junior Assistants were given selection grade without pressing for the passing of the requisite tests for promotion which is evident from the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, World Bank Project Circle, Salem-5, dated 22.9.1992 and the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli/Kanyakumari Circle, Tirunelveli, dated 18.2.1993.

4. The further averments of the writ petition are that similar nature of benefits were not extended in his case in utter disregard to Rules and violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India; that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefits in his favour was discriminate in nature and without enjoying the benefits to which he was lawfully entitled to, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.9.1994 and hence, once again he preferred an appeal before the first respondent apart from sending representations for the selection grade and special grade in his case on par with other candidates of similar nature and recently, he made representations on 12.3.1999 to the first respondent, on 27.5.1999 to the Chief Engineer, Tanjore, on 29.11.1999 to the Chief Engineer, Tanjore, with copies to the respondents and the Government of Tamilnadu, further making a representation on 12.1.2000 to the second respondent, but no action was taken on all these representations and that even in receipt of his appeal in letter dated 27.3.19 99, no orders were passed and hence the writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra.

5. No counter has been filed by the respondents nor even an appearance made on the part of the respondents defending them, and therefore, this Court is left with no option but to decide the writ petition based on the pleadings by the petitioner and the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner alone. So far as the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, he would lay emphasis only on those averments which have already been pleaded and would pray to allow the writ petition as prayed for without having brought forth any new facts or circumstances nor even arguing on the position of law covering the subject.

6. The petitioner's case is that he joined the service on 18.1.1960 as works Inspector and his services were regularised with effects from 1.4.1972 and he was upgraded to the post of Junior Assistant on 13 .7.1973 with regularisation in the said grade; that the petitioner would argue that on completion of ten years of service as Junior Assistant, his Selection Grade was due and that he was entitled for the Special Grade after 10 years from the date of Selection Grade, which was on 13.7.1993 to which he became entitled to, pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.3.1984 which recites that 'all employees shall be put in the selection/special grade posts automatically at the end of completion of 10 years of service whether they are qualified for promotion to a higher post or not.' Lamenting that his service upgradation and entitlement were not fixed by the respondents at the appropriate time on extraneous reasons (which the petitioner would not reveal) with effects from 13.7.1983 in the selection grade and for the special grade on 13.7.1993.

7. The petitioner would also come forward to allege that on his representation, the second respondent in his letter dated 21.12.1999, has rejected his claim stating that he is not entitled for the selection grade and special grade as it had been claimed since he had not passed the required tests and further specified that if any grades had been sanctioned to any one, such sanction could not stand as per the existing rules. The petitioner simply stating that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No.276 dated 7.8.1992 specifying the criterion that one should possess the qualifications and pass the tests prescribed for the next higher post, need not be insisted since the same has not been emphasised in the case of two other employees, viz., M.Selvamani and D.Santhakumari, both Junior Assistants, who were given Selection Grade without pressing for passing the required tests for promotion.

8. In the above circumstances, if a decision has to be taken on the claim of the petitioner as aforementioned, it is relevant to consider the existing rules pertaining to the subject. It is the admitted case on the part of the petitioner that G.O. Ms.No.276 dated 7.8.1992 specifies the criterion for such promotions stating that one should possess the qualifications and pass the tests prescribed for the next higher posts. This G.O. Stands still unchallenged. The petitioner simply stating that the Government Order need not be insisted upon and further citing two bad examples of the authorities having promoted two others, viz., M.Selvamani and D.Santhakumari, Junior Assistants, who are alleged to have been given Selection Grade without pressing for the requisite tests, cannot seek redressal on such basis since they are not the requirements of law or rules or the system in vogue. The Government Order cited still stands good and unchallenged and so far as it is in existence, it has to be scrupulously adopted in letter and spirit. If at all the authorities without giving effect to the stipulations of the Government Order, had promoted the said M. Selvamani and D.Santhakumari, Junior Assistants to the Selection Grade in the light of the revelations and the existing rules and regulations that are prevalent, such promotions would also become liable to be cancelled and the petitioner citing such bad examples, cannot claim that he should also be promoted in the same manner as the other two have been done out of the way and without application of the existing rules since the petitioner cannot claim equality in illegality. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that according to the existing rules or order, the petitioner does not in any manner become entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition and in result, the writ petition becomes liable only to be dismissed.

9. However, since it is revealed in this writ petition that one M. Selvamani and another D.Santhakumari, Junior Assistants have been given Selection Grade without pressing for to pass the requisite tests for promotion, the respondents are hereby directed to review their promotions to the Selection Grade and pass orders with an opportunity for them to be heard treating their case on par with the petitioner, thus deciding the same strictly adhering to the rules and orders pertaining to such promotions in the Board.

10. For the reasons given in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition becomes liable only to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, W.P.M.P. NO.25595 of 2000 is also dismissed. gs.

15.3.2002

Sd/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/ True copy /

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/-

To

1. The Managing Director,

Tamilnadu Water Supply and

Drainage Board,

No.31, Kamarajar Salai,

Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

2. The Superintending Engineer,

Tamilnadu Water Supply and

Drainage Board,

Tanjore Circle,

No.5, V.O.C. Nagar,

Tanjore - 7.

gs.

V.KANAGARAJ,J.

Order

in W.P.No.17663 of 2000

15.03.2002




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.