T.Raja, S/O.Thandavan, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN T.Raja ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer [Personnel] Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer CEDC/Metro, Coimbatore-12.
4.The Executive Engineer/O&M CEDC/Metro Ondipudur Division 21C, Vasantha Nagar, Singanallur-5.
... Respondents Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representations dated 11.07.2016 and 27.01.2017
of the petitioner, conduct enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law within the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Arumugavel For Responden :
Mr.K.Rajkumar Standing counsel
ORDER
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a mandamus, seeking a direction against the 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer [Personnel], Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Chennai, to consider the representations given by the petitioner on 11.07.2016 and on 27.01.2017.
(2) The petitioner had joined as Helper Trainee in the respondents in the year 2001. His services were regularised. He was appointed as Helper in the year 2003. He was then appointed as Commercial Assistant in the year 2004 and promoted as Commercial Inspector in the year 2008. He also completed Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering in 2012. This has also been registered in the Service Register. The respondents had sought a suitability Report for
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II from among the Commercial Inspectors/Line Inspectors who had possessed the aforementioned Diploma or equivalent qualification. But the petitioner had also proposed his name for such promotion. Complaining that the representation given by the petitioner had not been answered by the respondents, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that subsequently, the petitioner had actually been promoted as Junior Engineer. Learned counsel then placed a request that the seniority of the petitioner may now be examined by the respondents.
(4) That is an issue which the petitioner will have to seek by way of separate proceedings if the seniority is actually adverse to him. There are no such indications that the petitioner's seniority has been placed to his disadvantage. If it is placed to his disadvantage, the petitioner may give necessary representation. I am confident that it would be addressed in manner known to law and in accordance with Rules and Regulations. So far as the issue raised regarding the promotion as
Junior Engineer is concerned, the issue does not arise for adjudication any more since the petitioner had already been promoted as Junior Engineer.
(5) The writ petition therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. 21.07.2023 AP Internet : Yes To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer [Personnel] Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer CEDC/Metro, Coimbatore-12.
4.The Executive Engineer/O&M CEDC/Metro Ondipudur Division 21C, Vasantha Nagar, Singanallur-5.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., AP WP.No.6768/2013 21.07.2023