logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2349 print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : WP(MD) No. 24313 of 2018 & WMP(MD) No. 23777 Of 2023
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY
Parties : T. Saravanan Versus The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Its Secretary Public Works Department Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. A.N. Ramanathan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.R.A. Ramachanddran, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 03-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Letter No.52B(5)/40516/2018 dated 27.03.2018 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to effect the promotion of the petitioner from 11.11.2006 and place the petitioner in the seniority panel to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in Public Work Department, State Government of Tamil Nadu in par with his immediate junior and provide all consequential service benefits for the same (Prayer amended vide Court Order dated 10.02.2021))

1. Pending writ petition, the prayer was amended and it is amended as under:

               This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings in Letter No.52B(5)/40516/2018 dated 27.03.2018 of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to effect the promotion of the petitioner from 11.11.2006 and place the petitioner in the seniority panel to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in Public Work Department, State Government of Tamil Nadu in par with his immediate junior and provide all consequential service benefits for the same. (Prayer amended vide Court Order dated 10.02.2021).

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner possesses a Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering. He was first appointed on 05.12.1989 as an Overseer through G.O. Ms. No.1356 dated 08.07.1987, issued by the first respondent for the modernization of the Periyar Vaigai Project.

3. While appointing the petitioner, it was made clear that, pending the framing of Adhoc Rules, the appointment was made under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Subsequently, the Subordinate Service Rules were framed through G.O.Ms.No.538 dated 30.07.1996. In the said Adhoc Rules, it was stated that the General and Special rules are applicable to the holders of the permanent post of Overseer in Category 2 under Branch I – Engineering Branch in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Overseer – High Frequency. The Rules further states that the Rules shall come into effect from 04.01.1988 except Rule 8. The Rule 8 shall come into force from 30.07.1996.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner qualified himself with B.E. (Electrical) on 11.11.2006. Hence, the petitioner claims promotion based on the Adhoc Rules.

5. As per G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1990, Overseers who have completed five years of service shall be eligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineer by transfer of service upon acquiring B.E./AMIE qualification. The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Zone, recommended the petitioner along with two others for preparation of a panel to the post of Assistant Engineer vide communication dated 29.09.2009. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been appointed as Assistant Engineer with effect from the date of acquiring the B.E. qualification, i.e., 11.11.2006.

6. The feeder category for the post of Assistant Engineer consists of Drafting Officer, High Tension Operator, and CF Technical Assistant in the ratio of 1:3. This was prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 24.08.2012. However, the petitioner claims that even prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 217, he was entitled to promotion from 11.11.2006. In support of his claim, he relies on G.O.Ms.No.1 of 1990, wherein paragraph No.4 states as follows:

               ....

               “ 4. After careful consideration, the Government accept the recommendation of the Chief Engineer (General ) Public Works Department and the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and they accordingly direct that with effect from the date of this order, Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants in Public Works Departments, who have put up five years service, will be eligible to be appointed as Appointed as Assistant Engineer on transfer of service on acquiring BE/AMIE qualification.”

7. It is stated therein that an Overseer is also entitled to promotion if he has completed five years of service and possesses a B.E. qualification. The petitioner had already completed more than five years of service as an Overseer. Therefore, from the date of acquiring the qualification, the petitioner claims he is entitled to promotion. But the respondent had granted promotion from 17.03.2013 for the year 2013 – 2014 only.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in the year 2008, promotions were granted from the post of Overseer without granting promotion to him. One Shanmuganathan and three others were considered promotion even though the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 above Shanmuganathan in the seniority list. Therefore, the petitioner claims promotion from 2008 onwards.

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter stating that, in view of G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 24.08.2012, the petitioner would become eligible to enter the feeder category as Overseer only from the date of the said Government Order and not prior to that date. However, the respondents have not stated anything regarding G.O.Ms. No.1 of 1990, which grants promotion opportunity to the petitioner.

10. After hearing the rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner had completed five years of service in the post of Overseer and had also obtained a B.E. qualification. Based on G.O.Ms.No.1 of 1990, he is entitled to promotion. However, promotion can be granted only when a vacancy arises. The first such vacancy arose in the year 2008. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to promotion from 2008 onwards.

11. However, since the petitioner filed this writ petition only in the year 2018, he is not entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the earlier period. The petitioner shall be entitled to promotion notionally from 2008 onwards, but monetary benefits shall be granted only from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., on 10.12.2018.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant promotion to the petitioner from 2008 onwards. However, monetary benefits shall be granted from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e., 10.12.2018 onwards. The petitioner is also eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Therefore, subsequent notional promotions shall be conferred from the date of this order in accordance with law and consequential monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

 
  CDJLawJournal