R.Kanniyappan v. The Chief Engineer (General) And (Wro)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL 1.R.Kanniyappan 2.R.Arumugam ...Appellants Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (General) & (WRO), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division - II, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
4.M.E.Govindraj
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.31278 of 2016, dated 22.09.2021 and allow the Writ Petition.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Ramalingam
For Respondents : Mr.G.Ameedius, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 : No Appearance for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The claim of the appellants herein before the Writ Court was for notional promotion as General Foreman on par with the fourth respondent herein, predominantly on the ground that though both of them were promoted to the post of Wireman Grade-II, Head Wireman and Electrical Maistry, prior to the fourth respondent's promotions, they were entitled to be promoted as General Foreman on par with the fourth respondent.
2. According to the appellants, their promotion to the post of Wireman Grade-II was in the year 1988 and to that of the Electrical Maistry in the years 2007 and 2008 respectively, whereas the fourth respondent was promoted as Wireman Grade-II in the year 1992 and as Electrical Maistry in the year 2009 only.
3. The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 22.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.31278 of 2016, had rejected the claim of the
appellants, on the ground that the appellants herein joined the post of Helper in the year 1977, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed as a Cleaner in the year 1972 itself and his seniority was re-fixed on 31.10.2008 above the appellants herein.
4. The seniority of the employees of Public Works Department is fixed based on the date of entry into the post of Helper. As per the proceedings of the Chief Engineer dated 04.07.2013, such seniority was determined on the basis of the concerned electrical circles. Admittedly, both the appellants herein were appointed in the year 1977, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed as Helper in the year 1972 itself. Though the appellants herein were promoted to the post of Wireman Grade-II and Electrical Maistry even prior to the fourth respondent and he was shown as junior to the appellants herein, his seniority was re-fixed based on his representation at Serial No.4, whereas the appellants' seniority were fixed at Serial Nos.33 and 34 respectively.
5. Admittedly, when the fourth respondent was initially appointed as a Helper, which is prior to the appellants herein and he was also shown
as their senior as per the revised seniority list, we fail to understand how the appellants can claim parity in terms of promotion on par with the fourth respondent herein. This apart, the conduct of the appellants in having raised this claim after six years of their retirement, without adducing any reasonable cause for the delay and laches, also is not appealing to us.
6. In our view, the learned Single Judge had properly appreciated the claim of the appellants and had rejected the same. We find no reason to interfere with the same and hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[M.S.R.,J] [R.S.V.,J] 08.09.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk
To 1.The Chief Engineer (General) & (WRO), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division - II, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
hvk 08.09.2025