The Managing Director v. K Manoharan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and C.M.P.No.9502 of 2026 1.

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., 3/137, Salamedu, Valudha Reddy Post Villupuram - 605 602.

2.

The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region Ponnerikarai Chennai-Bangalore National Highway Kancheepuram.

... Appellants vs.

K.Manoharan S/o.Kanniappan ... Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No39595 of 2024.

Page Nos.1/5

For Appellants :

Mr.T.Chandrasekaran For Respondents :

Mr.Balan Haridoss for Mr.N.Ishak *****

J U D G M E N T

[Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] Under assail is the writ order dated 17.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.39595 of 2024. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Limited is the appellant. The respondent has instituted the writ petition challenging the order of reversion, reverting him from the post of General Foreman to the post of Foreman.

2. The writ Court has considered the issue and allowed the writ petition.

3. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants, would mainly contend that the respondent was initially appointed as Junior Tradesman on 24.09.1992 and was promoted to the post of Foreman on 17.08.2016. His initial promotion to the post of Foreman was not in accordance with the Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the further promotion granted was also erroneous and thus, the order of reversion is in Page Nos.2/5

accordance with the terms of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would rely on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.20, Transport Department, dated 29.02.2016.

4. Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the respondent, would oppose the same by stating that G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 29.02.2016 would have no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent admittedly had not exercised any option for re-designation based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.20. Therefore, the very ground raised in the writ appeal is untenable.

5. This Court has considered these rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

6. The fact remains that the respondent was appointed as Junior Tradesman on 24.09.1992 and promoted to the post of Foreman on 17.08.2016. He was further promoted to the post of General Foreman by order dated 17.03.2023. Accordingly, his pay was fixed in the promotional post. Admittedly, the respondent has not exercised his option for re-designation to the post of Junior Engineer from the post of Foreman (Diploma) and as Assistant Engineer from the post of General Foreman (Diploma). That apart, the Government Order Page Nos.3/5

in G.O.Ms.No.20 was passed on 29.02.2016. The respondent was promoted to the post of Foreman on 17.08.2016. However, he had not exercised his option for re-designation to the post of the Junior Engineer. Thus, his promotion cannot be construed as being in violation of the terms of G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 29.02.2016.

7. The writ Court, has elaborately considered the application of G.O.Ms.No.20 in the case of the respondent as well as the promotion granted to him. Except by stating that the promotion was granted by error, the reasons are not substantiated by the appellants. That apart, the promotion was granted in 2016 and 2023 and the reasons stated for reversion in the order impugned are neither candid nor convincing. Thus, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 25.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk Page Nos.4/5

S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mk 25.06.2026 Page Nos.5/5