The Original Application in O.A.No.536 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner was working as Anganwadi Worker from 13.04.1978 in Morapur Integrated Child Development Scheme Office, Chinnamurukanpatti Centre, Dharmapuri District. Her grievance is that her juniors, who joined subsequently in the service, were promoted as Community Nutrition Supervisor. But she was still continuing as Anganwadi Worker.
3.The petitioner states that the second respondent in a proceedings dated 30.07.1999, requested the first respondent to include her name in the approved panel for promotion to the post of Community Nutrition Supervisor. But, no action was taken by the first respondent. She made a representation dated 25.08.2000 to the first respondent, to include her name in the panel. But, nothing was done by the first respondent.
4.Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.536 of 2002 (W.P.No.8431 of 2006) praying to promote the petitioner to the post of Community Nutrition Supervisor retrospectively with effect from 19.07.1993, the date on which, her junior viz., the third respondent was promoted, with all monetary benefits.
5.Heard Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
6.The petitioner enclosed the panel dated 19.07.1993 of Anganwadi Workers fit for promotion to the post of Community Nutrition Supervisor. In the said panel, number of persons, who joined subsequently to the petitioner, were included. As stated above, the petitioner joined on 13.04.1978. The third respondent joined on 19.04.1978 as Anganwadi Worker as per the panel dated 19.07.1993. The persons, who joined after 19.04.1978 and upto 28.11.1978 as Anganwadi Workers were included in the panel. But the name of the petitioner was not included in the panel.
7.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent, the second respondent sent a letter dated 30.07.1999, recommending for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel. It is stated in the said letter that certain entries were not made in the Service Register of the petitioner. It is further stated that the office got the Service Register of the petitioner belatedly. Hence, it was not possible to send the same at the correct time. It is also stated that when the Service Register is perused, she has been in employment continuously. In the said letter, it is stated as follows:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
8.In fact, the second respondent seems to have sent a letter dated 31.05.1999 stating that the proposals regarding promotion of the petitioner to the post of Community Nutrition Supervisor was not sent due to administrative reasons. The said letter dated 31.05.1999 was addressed to the first respondent. The first respondent sent a reply dated 13.07.1999, directing the second respondent to furnish the details of the administrative reasons that led to not sending the proposals at a proper time. The aforesaid letter dated 30.07.1999 is in reply to the letter dated 13.07.1999 of the first respondent. Therefore, by reading the letter dated 13.07.1999 of the first respondent and the letter dated 30.07.1999 of the second respondent, the stand of the second respondent was that the petitioner was not included in the panel, when her juniors were included, only due to administrative reasons and the petitioner was not responsible for the same.
9.The learned Government Advocate has argued, based on written instructions dated 12.10.2009 of the second respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted in 2008 during the pendency of the writ petition and that therefore, the petitioner should have no grievance. But the petitioner asserts that she was denied promotion in 1993 unjustly when her juniors were promoted.
10.The written instructions dated 12.10.2009 received from the second respondent states that the petitioner was absent on many occasions between 13.07.1978 and 30.11.1997. It is stated as the reason for not including the petitioner in the panel. The details of the leave taken by the petitioner for the periods between 13.04.1978 and 30.11.1997 was enclosed in a separate sheet.
11.I have perused the written instructions. The reason given by the second respondent for non-inclusion has to be rejected. It is not the case of the second respondent that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for unauthorised absence. She was granted leave. She was not unauthorisedly absent. Once she was granted leave, the second respondent could not cite the same as a reason for not including the petitioner in the panel. In any event, as stated above, in the letter dated 31.05.1999 and 30.07.1999, the second respondent recommended the petitioner for including her name in the panel. There is no answer from the respondents for the aforesaid letters of the second respondent. The respondents also did not choose to file a counter, particularly, when the matter was adjourned frequently on so many occasions from 20.08.2009 onwards for filing counter affidavit. In fact, on 16.09.2009, the following order was passed by this Court:
"On 28.08.2009, 09.09.2009 and 10.09.2009, the matter was adjourned for filing counter at the instance of the respondents. But no counter is filed. The learned Govt. Advocate seeks further time for filing counter. Particularly when the petitioner asserts that her juniors were earlier promoted, the promotion given during the pendency of the writ petition does not satisfy her. The respondents are directed to file the counter, otherwise, the matter will be proceeded as if the averments are not in dispute. Post on 06.10.2009."
In spite of the same, the respondents did not choose to file counter. The proceedings dated 13.07.1999 of the first respondent and 30.07.1999 of the second respondent were enclosed in the typed set, when the petitioner filed the Original Application. Those proceedings support the version of the petitioner.
12.In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for promotion from the date on which her juniors were promoted is well founded. Hence, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
TK To
1.The Director of Social Welfare Chepauk, Chennai 5.
2.The Child Development Project Officer Morapur, Dharmapuri District