← Library
Madras High CourtWP/14009/2019disposed of

M.Dakshinamoorthy v. State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-04-29Honourable Ms Justice R.N.Manjula5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

1. M.Dakshinamoorthy S/o. Late M.Marimuthu, Old No.21, New No.6, Cappicien Street, Ariyankuppam Post, Puducherry - 605 007 Chennai Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-05Chennai 2.The Addl. Director of Agriculture (Establishment and Plannaing), Chepauk, Chennai -05 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of assistant agriculture officer on the basis of inclusion in the panel of Assistant Agriculture officer dated 12.02.2007 w.e.f 01.01.1998

with all consequential monetary and other benefits For Petitioner(s):

Mr. K.Sathiyavel, For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Umakanth Government Advocate for R1 Mr.T.Chezhiyan Additional Government Pleader for R2

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer on the basis of inclusion in the panel of Assistant Agricultural officer dated 12.02.2007 w.e.f 01.01.1998 with all consequential monetary and other benefits

2. The disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner who was working as Lab Assistant and the same was subsequently closed. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. The petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent on 30.08.2008 & 23.05.2012 requesting him to promote as Assistant Agricultural Officer. In the final order passed on 31.10.2007 it has been stated that the service during the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2007 will be counted as service for all other services except salary. So it is claimed by the petitioner that the promotion cannot be denied to the petitioner. After the petitioner has given representation, all the details have been called for on 24.01.2014. However, promotion has not been given to the

petitioner.

3. The charge memo already issued on 04.10.2007 also quashed by an order of this Court. The petitioner claims that there is no justification in withholding his promotion to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer. He had also claimed that similarly placed persons were given promotion to the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and hence no discrimination be shown to the petitioner.

4. As the petitioner's representation has not been considered so far, and the order of this Court on 31.10.2017 also has specifically mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to all of the service benefits excepting backwages, I feel the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

29-04-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes bkn

To

1. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-05Chennai 2.The Addl. Director of Agriculture (Establishment and Plannaing), Chepauk, Chennai -05

R.N.MANJULA J.

bkn 29-04-2025