M.Sadeesh Kumar v. The Principal District Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Writ Petition No.32755 of 2018 M.Sadeesh Kumar S/o.P.Mathivanan

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Courts V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

[R3 impleaded vide order dated 07.06.2019 made in W.M.P.No.32755/2018] ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in A.No.71/2018 dated 05.03.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant by including his name in the appropriate panel notionally on par with his junior Mr.Venkataramanan, who joined the service on 03.05.2010 and grant him further promotion ont par with his junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, senior counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents: Mr.K.Elango [R1 and R2] Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar Special Government Pleader [R3]

O R D E R

[Order was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition seeking quash of the order of first respondent passed in A.No.71/2018 dated 05.03.2018 and consequently, direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant and promote him as Assistant by including his name in the appropriate panel notionally on par with his junior Mr.Venkataramanan, who joined service on 03.05.2010 and grant him further promotion on par with his junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner's father was serving as Assistant in the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and he had voluntarily retired from service on 26.04.2009 on medical grounds. At the time of petitioner's father's voluntary retirement, liberty was granted for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. Petitioner's father died on 09.12.2009. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground by proceedings of first respondent dated 09.02.2010. Petitioner reported for duty on 10.02.2010. Petitioner's service was regularised by orders of Government in GO Ms.No.84, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 31.12.2015 after getting concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, who is the competent authority. Though the petitioner was appointed on 09.02.

2010, his service was regularised only on 31.12.2015 as there was delay in getting concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Thereafter, petitioner was sent to Bhavanisagar Institute for civil services training from 30.03.2016 to 19.05.2016 and recommendations have been made to the Government for declaring the probation of the petitioner. Petitioner has also passed all the examinations conducted at the fag end of the training and petitioner's probation was declared by proceedings of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, with effect from 10.02.2010. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as an Assistant.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the date of appointment, petitioner has attained sufficient seniority and hence, eligible for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel for the year 2015. However, one Venkataraman, who joined service at Cuddalore District on 03.05.2010 and who happened to be junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Assistant/Bench Clerk Grade III on 07.01.2015. As there was delay in regularisation of the petitioner's service as well as declaration of his probation, he could not get his promotion on

par with his junior. Had there been no delay in regularising the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant as well as declaration of probation, petitioner would have got promotion as Assistant very much ahead of his junior Venkataraman. Petitioner, who has been granted promotion belatedly, on account of administrative delay, in the panel of Assistant for the year 2016 instead of 2015, has made a detailed representation to first respondent through proper channel. However, the first respondent, under the impugned order dated 05.03.2018, rejected the petitioner's representation stating as follows:

'After regularisation of temporary services of the individual, he was deputed to Civil Services Training at Bhavanisagar for the period from 30.03.2016 to 19.05.2016.

Thereafter he was considered for promotion as Assistant and as such he was promoted as Assistant as per the proceedings in A.No.322/2016 dated 25.07.2016 and joined duty as Assistant in the Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Chidambaram on 03.08.2016. Considering the above, refixation of Seniority does not arise and the request of the individual is rejected.'

Hence, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Special Government Pleader for third respondent as also perused the counter of first respondent.

5. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in an identical set of facts, several Writ Petitions were allowed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petitioner cannot be blamed for delay in getting concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regularising his service and non-inclusion of his name in the promotional panel for the year 2015. Petitioner's service was regularised only after 51⁄2 years from the date of his initial appointment, which resulted in sending him to Bhavanisagar Institute for basic training from 30.03.2016 to 19.05.2016. Since the delay in regularising the petitioner's service as well as declaration of his probation has occurred only owing to administrative reasons, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion as Assistant on par with his juniors. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of first respondent passed in A.No.71/2018 dated 05.03.2018 is

quashed. Consequently, respondents are directed to revise the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant and promote him as Assistant by including his name in the appropriate panel notionally on par with his junior Mr.Venkataramanan, who joined service on 03.05.2010 and grant him further promotion on par with his junior. However, petitioner is not entitled to get any arrears of salary for the promoted post and the seniority alone is to be given. The said notional promotion shall be calculated for all purpose except back wages. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Courts V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

+1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No.57052 Writ Petition No.32755 of 2018 LN(CO) GMY(07/08/2019)