The Original Application in O.A. No.1754 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Workshop Assistant on 07.09.1979. He was promoted as Draughtsman on 01.02.1980. He was further promoted as Instructor on 21.12.1988. Before 1988, the post of Instructors in Government Polytechnics were filled up only by direct recruitment. By G.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service was amended providing for promotion to Instructors from the categories of Foreman (Automobile) or Boiler Foreman or Electrical Foreman or Workshop Instructor or Draughtsman who are possessing diploma qualification in the respective branch of engineering relating to the posts concerned. There is also a stipulation that they should have served atleast for a period of two years in the feeder category. The amendment was given retrospective effect from 23.12.1981.
3. The petitioner acquired diploma qualification in Mechanical Engineering in April 1975 and he was promoted on 21.12.1988 as Instructor. He made a representation dated 27.10.1999 to the first respondent to promote him as per G.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, as the amendment made to Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service came into effect retrospectively from 23.12.1981. The petitioner cited the case of one Mr. Vinayagamoorthy as the same was favourably considered by the respondents by giving deemed promotion retrospectively. Since his representation was not considered and no order was passed, he filed O.A. No.1754 of 2001 (W.P. No.8715 of 2006) praying for a direction to the respondents to promote him as Instructor from 1982, and also to give consequential promotion as Associate Lecturer as given to one Thiru Vinayagamoorthy, who is a junior to him, and to fix his pay on par with Thiru Vinayagamoorthy.
4. Heard Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
5. Though the prayer of the Writ Petitioner is to promote him with effect from 01.01.1982, as per G.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per G.O. Ms. No.1364, Education Department, dated 16.08.1988, he is entitled to promotion as Instructor only from 01.02.1982, on completion of two years of service as Draughtsman, the feeder category.
6. Thiru Vinayagamoorthy joined the service as Draughtsman, which is the feeder category for Instructor. He was promoted as Instructor in December 1988. In view of the amendment made to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and filed an Original Application in O.A. No.4286 of 1996, praying to direct the respondents to consider his representation for promotion to the post of Instructor retrospectively as per the amendment made to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Technical Educational Subordinate Service. Based on the order of the Tribunal, the first respondent passed G.O. Ms. No.472, Higher Education Department, dated 10.09.1998, appointing him as Instructor with effect from 07.01.1982 retrospectively in the institute of Chemical Technology, Chennai. As stated above, the post of Draughtsman was a feeder post. While he was actually promoted on 20.12.1988, the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.472 granted him deemed promotion restrospectively with effect from 07.01.1982. Armed with G.O. Ms. No.472 the petitioner approached the first respondent seeking similar relief. When his representation was not considered, he filed the O.A. as stated above.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed some orders granting retrospective promotion to some persons in the additional typed set of papers in support of his submissions. Three persons namely, N. Arunachalam, A. Albert Jesudoss and R. Rajagopal filed Original Applications in O.A. Nos.8415, 8416 and 8417 of 2000 claiming similar relief as given to Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. The Tribunal passed an order on 14.03.2002, directing the respondents to consider the representations of those persons on merits, based on the orders passed in the case of Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. However, the first respondent passed an order dated 01.12.2004, refusing to grant promotion retrospectively. Hence, the said three persons and also one Thiru G. Mathivanan have filed Writ Petition in W.P. No.4660 of 2005 praying for restrospective promotion as given to Thiru Vinayagamoorthy. This Court, on 30.10.2006, allowed the Writ Petition. Paras 10 and 11 of the said order are extracted here under:
"10. On the basis of the said notification, the State Administrative Tribunal has issued directions in favour of Shri. Vinayagamoorthy and also in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have considered the case of Vinayagamoorthy, whereas, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. Thus, the Court is unable to find the discrimination in the two orders.
11. For the simple reason, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as sought for and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and issue necessary orders regularising the services of the petitioners from the date of qualifying diploma as mentioned in their record."
8. The respondents filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No.261 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the first Bench of this Court on 08.04.2008, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.89, Higher Education Department, dated 31.03.2009 granting retrospective promotion to those four persons.
9. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is similarly situated like Thiru Vinayagamoorthy and the four other persons referred to above. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion only from 01.02.1982 and not from 01.01.1982, as claimed in the application.
10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly submits that he is not entitled to pay on par with Thiru Vinayagamoorthy, though he is his junior. The learned counsel submits that he is entitled to the pay of Instructor, only from 01.02.1982, whereas Thiru Vinayagamoorthy was granted the pay of Instructor from 07.01.1982.
11. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to grant deemed promotion retrospectively as Instructor to petitioner with effect from 01.02.1982 with consequential benefits as given to other similarly situated persons in terms of the order dated 30.10.2006 in W.P. No.4660 of 2005 and the order dated 08.04.2008 in W.A. No.261 of 2008, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
rns To
1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai-9
2. The Additional Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai