← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4472/2015disposed of

N.Vetriazhagan v. The Inspector General Of

2025-06-09Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR N.Vetriazhagan ... Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in their proceedings in No.36576/A5/2011, dated 30.12.2014, quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel on either side.

2. The petitioner, who retired from service as 'Assistant Inspector General of Registration' submitted a representation dated 22.10.2011 seeking revision of seniority in the cadre of 'Sub-Registrar Grade-II, Sub-Registrar Grade-I and District Registrar' by treating one Thiru.S.Swaminathan as his junior and to grant all consequential benefits including monetary benefits from the date of notional promotion. The said request made by the petitioner was considered by the respondent in the light of the orders passed by this court dated 09.09.2014 in W.P.No.16684 of 2012 and was rejected by passing an order bearing No.36576/A5/2011 dated 30.12.2014. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 30.12.2014, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition.

3. As already noted above, the petitioner is seeking revision of seniority in the cadre of 'Sub-Registrar Grade-II, Sub-Registrar Grade-I and District Registrar'. The original seniority in the cadre of 'Sub-Registrar Grade I and District Registrar' is consequential to the revision of seniority in the cadre of 'Sub-Registrar, Grade-II'. The petitioner herein, who was appointed

as 'Junior Assistant' on 10.09.1971, was promoted to the post of 'SubRegistrar, Grade-II' as early as on 09.06.1988 and to the post of 'SubRegistrar, Grade-I' on 31.03.1997. Aggrieved by his promotion to the post of 'Sub-Registrar Grade-II' with effect from 1988, the petitioner is stated to have made a claim and consequently his date of promotion to the post of 'SubRegistrar Grade-II' was altered to 10.08.1983 as against 09.06.1988. The claim that was made by the petitioner at that point of time was against one Thiru.P.Babu and accordingly, he was extended the benefit of promotion with effect from the date on which the said Thiru.P.Babu was promoted to the post of 'Sub-Registrar, Grade-II'.

4. It was thereafter, the petitioner retired from service in the year 2009 and subsequently submitted a representation in the year 2011 making a claim for revision of seniority and to treat Thiru.S.Swaminathan as his junior. The said Thiru.S.Swaminathan was promoted to the post of 'Sub-Registrar Grade II' as early as on 31.07.1983. The promotion that was granted in favour of one Thiru.S.Swaminathan is not under challenge at any point of time. Though the petitioner had earlier made a claim for promotion to the post of 'Sub-Registrar Grade-II' on par with his junior one Thiru.P.Babu with effect

from 10.08.1983, the petitioner has not chosen to make any claim for promotion to the post of 'Sub-Registrar Grade-II' on par with Thiru.S.Swaminathan or ahead of him, at that point of time.

5. Thus, the promotion that was granted in favour of the said Thiru.S.Swaminathan in the year 1983 has become final so also the promotion that is granted in favour of the petitioner herein with effect from 10.08.1983 also has became final. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioner made a claim for retrospective promotion on par with Thiru.S.Swaminathan and to treat the said Thiru.S.Swaminathan as junior only in the year 2011 i.e., two years after his retirement from service.

6. In order to make a claim for seniority, there is a limitation that is prescribed under Rule 35(f) of the Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules and in terms of the same, the petitioner is required to make a claim for seniority within a period of three years. But in the instant case, there is a long lapse of time and therefore, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Exactly, this is the reason that is assigned in the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the respondent.

7. In the light of the above, this court does not see any reason to find fault with the impugned order passed by the respondent.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 09.06.2025 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order To The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

skr 09.06.2025