B. Vasanthi v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.12.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P. Nos.14282, 14287 of 2008 and 11467 of 2009WP No.14282/20081.B. Vasanthi2.V. Sangiri3.K. Maladhi ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.5.2.The Deputy Commissioner (CT),P.A.P.J.M. Building,III Floor,Chennai (North) Division,Greams Road,Chennai.6. 3.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) P.A.P.J.M. Building,III Floor,Chennai (Central) Division,Greams Road, Chennai.6. RespondentsWP No. 14287 of 2008B.T. Vaidhegi ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai.4. ... RespondentWP No. 11467 of 2009:1.S. Gunasshegaran2.M. Sundararajan3.D. Padmavathi4.A. Palaniammal ... Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs.1.The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai.4. 2. The Secretary to Government,Home Department, Fort St. George,Chennai.9. ... Respondents Prayer: Petitions in WP No. 14282 of 2008 is filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners inthe cadre of Assistant based on the combined inter-se-seniority listin the cadre of Junior Assistant/Typist/Steno-typist as per Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules andconsequently promote the Petitioners to the post of Assistant andSuperintendent retrospectively with effect from the date on whichtheir immediate junior in the combined seniority list was promotedwith all monetary and consequential service benefits. Petition in WP Nos. 14287 of 2008 and 11467 of 2009 arefiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writof Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of thepetitioners in the cadre of Assistant based on the combined inter-se-seniority list of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in thecadre of Steno-typist as per Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Service Rules and consequently promote the Petitioners tothe post of Assistant and Superintendent retrospectively with effectfrom the date on which their immediate junior in the combinedseniority list was promoted with all monetary and consequentialservice benefits. For Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Subramanian For Respondents : Mr. V. Manohar Govt. Advocate COMMON ORDERWP No. 14282 of 2008 is filed to issue a Writ ofMandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of thepetitioners in the cadre of Assistant based on the combined inter-se-seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistant/Typist/Steno-typistas per Rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate ServiceRules and consequently promote the Petitioners to the post ofAssistant and Superintendent retrospectively with effect from thedate on which their immediate junior in the combined seniority listwas promoted with all monetary and consequential service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. WP Nos. 14287 of 2008 and 11467 of 2009 are filed toissue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix theseniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant based on thecombined inter-se-seniority list in the cadre of Steno-typist as perRule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules andconsequently promote the Petitioners to the post of Assistant andSuperintendent retrospectively with effect from the date on whichtheir immediate junior in the combined seniority list was promotedwith all monetary and consequential service benefits.3. WP No. 11467 of 2009 was admitted on 25.6.2009 and itwas directed to be posted along with WP No. 14287 of 2008, a datefixed writ petition. 4. The petitioners in WP No. 14282 of 2008 were originallyappointed as Steno-typists through TNPSC select list on differentyears viz., 1984, 1981 and 1987 respectively. The petitioners in WPNo. 14287 of 2008 joined as Steno-typists in the Police Department on18.2.1987 through TNPSC. Petitioners 1 and 2 in WP No. 11467 of2009 were appointed as steno-typists in the Police Department in theyear 1987 and petitioners 3 and 4 were appointed in the year 1984.5. According to the petitioners, the recruitment made bythe TNPSC was by a common examination for the posts of JuniorAssistant, Typists and Steno-typist, which is the Group-IV category.All the three cadres are eligible to be promoted to the posts ofAssistant and Superintendent in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Servicesbased on the inter-se-seniority among the three cadres. It is notdisputed that the petitioners in all the cases, in the course of timewere promoted as Assistants and continue to work in the respectivedepartment. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that whileconsidering their case for promotion to the higher posts, the inter-se-seniority in Group-IV at the time of recruitment through TNPSCshould have been taken into consideration, whereas, the case of thesteno-typist was treated differently. Petitioners were deprived oftheir promotion giving preference to the Junior Assistant and Typist.This anomaly was pointed out by similarly placed persons to theGovernment time and again and based on such representations,overlooking the ban order, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No. 34Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 21.2.2001.Thereafter, the benefits were given to the steno-typists. Insofar asthe claim of seniority as per the date of entry in Group-IV isconcerned, a clarification was issued by the Deputy Secretary toGovernment, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(B) Department inletter No. 73950/B/2000-1, dated 22.8.2003 addressed to all heads ofDepartment which reads as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " I am directed to invite attention to thereferences cited and to furnish the following reply for theclarifications sought for in the letter 2nd cited. Clarification requiredReply for clarification requiredFixing of seniority for steno-typistGr.III appointed by TNPSC., by DirectRecruitment prior to 1.8.92 (i.e.Date of issue of ban order) whether considering the date ofjoining as Steno-typist Gr.III inkthe combined seniority list of JuniorAssistants based on their acquiringTest qualification, their senioritycan be fixed by placing their namesin the appropriate place in the cadreof Assistant?(ii) Fixing of Seniority of Styno-typist Gr.III appointed byDepartment/District transfer after1.8.92. Whether date of joining as Steno-typist Gr.III in the respectivepanchayat Development Unit onDepartment/District transfer may beconsidered as crucial date, and theirnames may be placed in theappropriate place in Assistant cadre?And(iii) Fixing of Seniority of Steno-Typist Gr.III appointed by TNPSCthrough direct recruitment after1.8.92. Whether date of joining as Assistant(After appointment by transfer) maybe considered as crucial date andtheir names may be placed in theappropriate place in the Assistantcadre. Prior to 1.8.92, the combinedseniority list of the TNPSC., may bemaintained and appointment ofeligible Styno-typist Gr.III asAssistant by Transfer and Seniorityof such persons may be fixed as perrule 35(a) of General Rules for theT.N.S&S.The Rule 35 (aa) of the General Rulesfor the T.N. S&S.S.May be followed in fixing theirseniority.The Rule 35(aa) of the General Rulesfor the T.N.S&S.S. May be followed infixing their seniority. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the DirectorGeneral of Police. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit isextracted hereunder:-" I submit that with regard to the averments in Para(e) and (f) of the grounds in the affidavit, the Governmentin their letter No. 60014/B/2007-3 P & AR, Deptt., dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.3.2008 have clarified that prior to 1.8.92, the seniorityin the post of Assistant, promoted from the posts of JuniorAssistant, Typist and Steno-typist, shall be in the ratio of4: 1 (4 Junior Assistant: 1 Typists/Steno-typist) on thecombined seniority maintained by the TNPSC according to Rule35(a) of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and SubordinateServices. Hence, the averment made in these paragraphs arenot correct and justifiable. However, the Government havebeen addressed seeking orders on the representation of thepetitioner. ( emphasis supplied) (20) I submit that with regard to the averments inpara (g) & (h) of the grounds in the affidavit as per theTAT order dated 27.11.92, the Government have quashed the4:1 ratio vide their G.O.Ms.No.16(P & AR) Department, dated21.2.2002 and amended in Government letter No. 60014/B/2007-3, P&AR Department, dated 25.3.2008 that prior to 1.8.92,the seniority in the post of Assistant, promoted from theposts of Junior Assistant, Typist and Steno-typist, shall bein the ratio of 4:1 as per the combined seniority listmaintained by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissionaccording to Rule 35(a) of General Rules of TNSS. Further,the Government in their letter No. 40363/B/2006-9, P&AR(B)Dept., dated 28.3.2008 have stated that the Hon'ble HighCourt in their order in W.P.No. 28300/05, dated 4.4.2006 hasset aside the Government letter No.23498/MAWS(ME.1) 97-5,dated 24.10.97 (ordered by the Government MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department) regardingseniority as per rules in the ratio of 4:1 (4 JuniorAssistant: 1 typist/Steno Typist) from 8.3.84 to 26.11.92and from 27.11.92 onwards combined seniority of JuniorAssistant/ Typist. This was stayed by the Division Bench ofHigh court by its order dated 4.9.2006 in W.A.No. 1145/2006.The Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 5.2.2008 (onW.A.No. 1145/2006) has dismissed the above said appeal andordered that orders passed by the TAT dated 27.11.92(regarding fixation of 4:1 ratio) becomes final. Based onthe above judgment, the Government have been requested forfixing of inter-se seniority of Steno-typist Grade III videthis office letter No.94155/NGB II(3)/2008, dated 26.8.2008.The matter is still under consideration of the Government.On receipt of Government orders, the inter-se-seniority ofthe individual will be revised."8. Insofar as the ratio with regard to the JuniorAssistant/Typist/ Steno-Typist is concerned, the same will beapplicable as per the orders of the Court as set out above. However,with regard to the claim of the petitioners for treating them on parwith that of the Junior Assistant for the purpose of promotionalbenefits based on the combined seniority in the entry level, which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Group-IV is concerned, since the matter is pending before theGovernment for consideration, it will be appropriate to direct theGovernment and the Heads of Department to pass appropriate ordersbased on the clarification issued on 22.8.2003 and such exercise willappropriately decide the claim of the petitioners. 9. Hence, the respondents are directed to pass necessaryorders in the light of the clarification issued on 22.8.2003, asstated in the counter affidavit. Such exercise shall be completed onor before the end of February 2010. All the three writ petitions areordered as above. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrarraTo1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.5.2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),P.A.P.J.M. Building,III Floor,Chennai (North) Division,Greams Road, Chennai.6. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) P.A.P.J.M. Building,III Floor, Chennai (Central) Division,Greams Road, Chennai.6.4. The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai.4. 5. The Secretary to Government,Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9.1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.66757 1 cc to Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, Sr.No.66627 WP Nos.14282,14287/2008 and 114467/2009KSK {CO}TP/15.12.2009.