Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

R.Gnanammal Selvi vs The Principal District Judge

Madras High Court|22 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[Order of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials produced.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 26.04.2008, passed by the respondent and for consequential directions upon the respondent to grant notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 21.03.2005, fix scale of pay from the date of notional promotion and pay her salary arrears with terminal service benefits etc., along with increment.
3. The petitioner, who was working as a Junior Assistant in the Subordinate Court at Thoothukudi, after retirement, submitted an application, on 10.03.2008, seeking promotion to the post of Assistant and to sanction one bonus increment for completion of 30 years of service. The said representation was considered by the respondent and the respondent noted that an identical relief was sought for by the petitioner earlier and the same were returned vide proceedings, dated 10.10.2007 and 25.02.2008, by referring to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10614 of 1998, dated 09.11.1999. However, it appears that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and she was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 09.01.2000. However, she had relinquished her right of promotion to the post of Assistant for three years and during the period of her relinquishment, four candidates, who were juniors to her, were promoted as Assistants and after expiry of her relinquishment period, no candidate was promoted to the post of Assistant and there was no possibility to fill-up the vacancy due to the ban order issued by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms) No.212, dated 29.11.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006. Thus, the respondent considered the entire matter and rejected the claim made by the petitioner as not tenable. The said order is put under challenge in this writ petition.
4. After hearing the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perusing the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, we find that the attempt made by the petitioner is belated and it is purely an afterthought. As noticed above, as per the directions issued by this Court, in W.P.No.10614 of 1998, dated 09.11.1999, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 09.01.2000. However, she had relinquished her right of promotion to the post of Assistant for three years and during the said relinquishment period, four candidates, who were juniors to her, were promoted as Assistants on administrative ground and thereafter, due to the ban on recruitment / promotion, no promotion was effected. Thus, the petitioner, having relinquished her right for promotion to the post of Assistant and four candidates, who were juniors to her, had been promoted thereafter, and there was no promotion on account of ban imposed by the Government, the respondent was fully justified in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is seen that the bonus increment sanctioned to the petitioner from 02.06.2004 till 31.03.2006 was ordered to be recovered pursuant to the communication, dated 04.05.2006, issued by the Accountant General. Therefore, it appears that the writ petition itself is an attempt to get over to such an order of recovery.
6. In the light of the above factual position, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with the impugned order passed by the respondent and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in making fresh representation to seek for grant of bonus as sanctioned by order, dated 19.01.2006, if the same is legally permissible. No costs.
To:
The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Thookudi District, Combined Court Complex, Thoothukudi-628 008..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.Gnanammal Selvi vs The Principal District Judge

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
22 March, 2017