B.Ekambaram v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2022 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.NO.13115 OF 2010 B.Ekambaram ... Petitioner .Vs.
1. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2. P.Selvaraj
3. R.Raman
4. K.Nagendran
5. B.Indiragandhi
6. G.Prabhavathi
7. V.Kannadasan
8. N.Kotteeswaran
9. K.Karunanidhi
10. V.Logadasan
11. M.Thirugnanasambandam ... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in RoC.No.10167/2010/PA3 dated 18.03.2010 and RoC.No.10163/ 2010/PA-2 dated 29.03.2010 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same in so far as the same relates to the petitioner herein and consequently direct the first respondent herein to forthwith refix the seniority of the petitioner herein in accordance with the Rules over and above the respondents 2 and 6 to 11 herein in the post of Junior Assistant and then in the post of Assistant over and above the respondents 2 to 11 herein. For the Petitioner :
Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran For the Respondents :
Mrs.E.Renganayaki Additional Government Pleader For R1 No Appearance for R2 to 11
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 18.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 of the first respondent, in and by which, respondents 6 to 11 are placed above the petitioner in the seniority list.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 22.06.2007 and the respondents 6 to 11 are junior to him in the post of Assistant. For ready reference, the following table would show the respective dates of the promotion of the respondents 6 to 11 to the post of Assistant: Name Date of joining the post of Assistant G.Prabavathi 23.08.2007 V.Kannadasan 22.08.2009 N.Kotteeswaran 23.08.2008 K.Karunanithi 08.09.2008 V.Logadasan 01.09.2008 M.Thiruganasambantham 01.09.2008
3. The petitioner had also given detailed reasons in the affidavit as to how the respondents 6 to 11, who were initially seniors to the petitioner in the lower grades, got promoted after the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in any view of the matter, the impugned seniority list is liable to be quashed.
4. The respondents have resisted the case by filing a detailed counter affidavit. The respondents have given detailed reasons in respect of each and every respondents, that is, relating to their transfer from one district to another district and the delay in promotion due to the lack of passing departmental examinations and acquisition of the qualifications subsequently, etc., and submitted that all these respondents were senior to the petitioner in the grade of Junior Assistant and therefore, they have been rightly placed in the appropriate level of their seniority.
5. I have heard Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.E.Renganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the materials on record.
6. At the outset, I find that various reasons given in detail by the respondents in their counter affidavit in respect of respondents 6 to 11 as to their erstwhile service particulars in respect to the post of Junior Assistant is not relevant to the instant case. As per Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, seniority has to be fixed by the appointing authority. Admittedly, the above dates of promotion of the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 11 are correct. The dates of promotion of the respondents 6 to 11 are not prior to the date of promotion of the petitioner and their dates of promotion remains subsequent to that of the petitioner. Therefore, for any reason what so ever that had happened during the service as Junior Assistant, the same cannot be undone in the seniority list in respect of the post of Assistant. So long as their date of promotion as Assistant remains unaltered, they cannot become seniors to the petitioner in the post of Assistant. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned orders 18.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 are quashed inasmuch as fixing the respondents 6 to 11 above the petitioner and consequently, the respondents are directed to refix the seniority list by placing the petitioner above the respondents 6 to 11 in the post of Assistant.
(ii) The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, if any, arises out of such re-fixation of seniority and if he is entitled to any benefit of promotion, the same shall be notionally granted and accordingly, his retiral benefits and pension would be re-fixed. The petitioner, however, would not be entitled to the arrears of difference in salary, but would be entitled to the arrears of retiral benefits and pension alone, if he is given any notional promotion. The petitioner will not be entitled to any interest on the arrears.
(iii) The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar drm To The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
+1cc to Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.25245 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26147 W.P.NO.13115 OF 2010 KK(CO) PBS/02/05/2022