THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN W.P. No. 8193 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.8955 of 2017
1. The Union of India represented by the Government of Puducherry through the Secretary to Government for Education, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director of School Education, Education Department, Puducherry. ..Petitioners Vs
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal represented by the Registrar, Additional City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
2. S.Jaganathan ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.310/01889/2014 dated 19.07.2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader(Puducherry) For Respondents : Suvitha George for Mr.V.Ajayakumar for R2 O R D E R K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 19 July 2016 in O.A.No.310/01889/2014 directing the petitioners to grant notional promotion to the second respondent with effect from 01 September 2012, refix his pay and pay him the pensionary benefits.
2. The second respondent filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that he was qualified for the post of Principal in August 2012 itself on completion of six years of regular service as per the Recruitment Rules. According to the second respondent, a proposal was sent for his promotion to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School. However, follow up action was not taken by the Department to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee. In the meantime, the second respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 August 2013. Since, the second respondent retired from service, he was not considered for promotion.
3. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the second respondent contended that he should have been given promotion at least from 24 January 2013, the date on which his name was considered for promotion. However, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to promote the second respondent to the post of Principal with effect from 01 September 2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners. We have also heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. There is no dispute that the second respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal even in August 2012. However, his particulars were collected by the Department only in 2013. The second respondent, therefore, contended before the Central Administrative Tribunal that he should have been given promotion to the post of Principal at least from 24 January 2013.
6. The petitioners have no case that the second respondent was not eligible for promotion as per the Recruitment Rules. Even in the year 2012, there was a post available to promote him as Principal. However, the fact remains that no action was taken by the petitioners to promote him. It was only in 2013 and more particularly, on 24 January 2013, the particulars of the second respondent were called for to consider him for promotion. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the petitioners with regard to the promotion of the second respondent. It was only under such circumstances, the second respondent filed the Original Application.
7. The Original Application filed by the second respondent was opposed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that by the time his name was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 August 2013. The inaction on the part of the petitioners to consider the case of the second respondent when he was eligible for promotion and when vacancy was available, cannot be taken to his disadvantage. The delay in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee during the currency of the service of the second respondent alone made him to file the Original Application. We are, therefore, of the view that the second respondent was correct in claiming promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 24 January 2013.
8. Even though the prayer was to give the second respondent promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 24 January 2013, the Central Administrative Tribunal granted him relief with effect from 01 September 2012. This relief was more than what was requested by the second respondent. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order insofar as it directs the petitioners to grant promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 01 September 2012, requires to be set aside.
9. In the result, the order dated 19 July 2016 is set aside in part. There shall be a direction to the petitioners to give notional promotion to the second respondent to the post of Principal with effect from 24 January 2013, the date on which his name was considered for promotion. The pension should be re-fixed taking into account the notional promotion with effect from 24 January 2013.
The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.)
21 June 2017
dm/gms To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Additional City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
& M.V. MURALIDARAN.J dm W.P. No. 8193 of 2017
21.06.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in