K. Ramakrishnan v. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-92 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 15.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMANW.P. No.2821 of 2007K. Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner-vs-1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-92. The Additional Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai ... RespondentsPrayer: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A. No.1486 of 2001from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayerto issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to promote theapplicant as instructor as per the Government Order No.1363 EducationDepartment dated 16.08.1988 on completion of Diploma qualificationwith effect from 1983 and give consequential promotion as Associatelecturer as given to one Thiru Vinayagamoorthy in G.O. Ms. No.472Technical Education Department, dated 10.09.1998 and fix his pay onpar with Junior Thiru Vinayagamoorthy and pay arrears.For Petitioner : Mr. G. ElanchezhiyanFor Respondents : Mr. D. Sreenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E RThe Original Application in O.A. No.1486 of 2001 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attender on11.11.1968 in the Government Polytechnic at Coimbatore. He waspromoted as Workshop Instructor on 08.12.1983. Before 1988, the postsof Instructor in Government Polytechnic were filled up only by directrecruitment. By G.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated16.08.1988, the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu TechnicalEducational Subordinate Service was amended providing for promotionfrom the categories of Foreman (Automobile) or Boiler Foreman or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Electrical Foreman or Workshop Instructor or Draughtsman who arepossessing diploma qualification in the respective branch ofengineering relating to the posts concerned. There is also astipulation that they should have served atleast for a period of twoyears in the feeder category. The amendment was given retrospectiveeffect from 23.12.1981. 3. The petitioner acquired diploma qualification in MechanicalEngineering in April 1983 and he was promoted on 05.01.1989 asInstructor. He made a representation dated 27.10.1999 to the firstrespondent to promote him as per G.O. Ms. No.1364, EducationDepartment, dated 16.08.1988, as the amendment made to Special Rulesfor the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service cameinto effect retrospectively from 23.12.1981. The petitioner cited thecase of one Mr. Vinayagamoorthy as the same was favourably consideredby the respondents by giving deemed promotion retrospectively. Sincehis representation was not considered and no order was passed, hefiled O.A. No.1486 of 2001 (W.P. No.2821 of 2007) praying for adirection to the respondents to promote him as Instructor from 1983,when he acquired diploma qualification and also to give consequentialpromotion as Associate Lecturer as given to one ThiruVinayagamoorthy, who is a junior to him, and to fix his pay on parwith Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. 4. Heard Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr. D. Sreenivasan, learned Additional GovernmentPleader for respondents.5. Though the prayer of the Writ Petitioner is to promote himwith effect from 1983, when he acquired diploma qualification, as perG.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per G.O. Ms.No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, he is entitled topromotion as Instructor only from 01.12.1985, on completion of twoyears of service as Workshop Instructor, the feeder category. 6. Thiru Vinayagamoorthy joined the service as Draughtsman,which is the feeder category for Instructor. He was promoted asInstructor in December 1988. In view of the amendment made to theSpecial Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational SubordinateService, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal andfiled an Original Application in O.A. No.4286 of 1996, praying todirect the respondents to consider his representation for promotionto the post of Instructor restrospectively as per the amendment madeto the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Technical Educational SubordinateService. Based on the order of the Tribunal, the first respondentpassed G.O. Ms. No.472, Higher Education Department, dated10.09.1998, appointing him as Instructor with effect from 07.01.1982retrospectively in the institute of Chemical Technology, Chennai. Asstated above, the post of Draughtsman was a feeder post. While he wasactually promoted on 20.12.1988, the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.472granted in deemed promotion restrospectively with effect from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

07.01.1982. Armed with G.O. Ms. No.472 the petitioner approached thefirst respondent seeking similar relief. When his representation wasnot considered, he filed the O.A. as stated above. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed some ordersgranting retrospective promotion to some persons in the additionaltyped set of papers in support of his submissions. Three personsnamely, N. Arunachalam, A. Albert Jesudoss and R. Rajagopal filedOriginal Applications in O.A. Nos.8415, 8416 and 8417 of 2000claiming similar relief as given to Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. TheTribunal passed an order on 14.03.2002, directing the respondents toconsider the representations of those persons on merits, based on theorders passed in the case of Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. However, thefirst respondent passed an order dated 01.12.2004, refusing to grantpromotion retrospectively. Hence, the said three persons and also oneThiru G. Mathivanan have filed Writ Petition in W.P. No.4660 of 2005praying for restrospective promotion as given to ThiruVinayagamoorthy. This Court, on 30.10.2006, allowed the WritPetition. Paras 10 and 11 of the said order are extracted here under:"10. On the basis of the said notification, theState Administrative Tribunal has issueddirections in favour of Shri. Vinayagamoorthy andalso in favour of the petitioners. Therespondents have considered the case ofVinayagamoorthy, whereas, the respondents havenot considered the case of the petitioners. Thus,the Court is unable to find the discrimination inthe two orders.11. For the simple reason, the Court is of theopinion that the petitioners are entitled for therelief as sought for and accordingly, the impugnedorder is quashed and the respondents are directedto consider the case of the petitioners within 30days from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder and issue necessary orders regularising theservices of the petitioners from the date ofqualifying diploma as mentioned in their record." 8. The respondents filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No.261 of 2008and the same was dismissed by the first Bench of this Court on08.04.2008, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.Thereafter, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.89, HigherEducation Department, dated 31.03.2009 granting retrospectivepromotion to those four persons. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that thepetitioner is similarly situated like Thiru Vinayagamoorthy and thefour other persons referred to above. As fairly submitted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled toretrospective promotion only from 01.12.1985 and not from 1983, asclaimed in the application. 10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner also fairlysubmits that he is not entitled to pay on par with ThiruVinayagamoorthy, though he is his junior. The learned counsel submitsthat he is entitled to the pay of Instructor, only from 01.12.1985,whereas Thiru Vinayagamoorthy was granted the pay of Instructor from07.01.1982. 11. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed togrant deemed promotion retrospectively as Instructor to petitionerwith effect from 01.12.1985 with consequential benefits as given toother similarly situated persons in terms of the order dated30.10.2006 in W.P. No.4660 of 2005 and the order dated 08.04.2008 inW.A. No.261 of 2008, within a period of twelve weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. 12. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar vgaTo1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-92. The Additional Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai+ 1 cc to Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, Advocate, SR 68809+ 1 cc to Govt., Pleader, SR 69210W.P. No.2821 of 2007NM (CO)RH (29.12.09)