AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—In this petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Government in letter No. 46574/L.F./98 dated
29.5.2003 refusing promotion to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from 25.6.1984 and for consequential directions.
The case of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed as Record Clerk on 10.9.1975 and he was given promotion only on 23.6.1995 even
though he was entitled to get promoted as early as on 25.6.1984. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Government issued
G.O.Ms. No. 42 P&AR Department, dated 22.1.1981 and ordered that 10% vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant in all the departments shall
be filled up by promotion from among the Record Clerks working in the respective departments. As per the said Government Order, petitioner
claims that he should have been given promotion as Junior Assistant from 1984 instead of 1995.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order of the State Administrative Tribunal made in T.A. No. 552 of 1991 dated 26.6.1992
wherein the Tribunal considered a similar request of the Record Clerks, who were denied promotion under the 10% vacancy in the post of Junior
Assistants in HR&CE Department. The Tribunal in the said order held that the Record Clerks working in that particular department are entitled to
get promotion in the 10% vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant and further ordered that the petitioners who were denied promotion are entitled
to pay fixation on the basis of such seniority dating from 25.6.1984 and for further promotion on the basis of such seniority subject to drawal of
pay from the date of appointment as Junior Assistant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited another order of the State Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.Nos.3570 and 3985 of 1994
dated 2.8.1994 in which the Tribunal ordered that G.O.Ms. No. 42 having been issued to give promotional opportunity to the Record Clerks
working in the department, the petitioners therein are entitled to get due promotion at the appropriate time within the quota and the action of the
department in not giving due promotion is total lack of equitable approach in the matter and discrimination in favour of the temporary incumbents.
The learned Government Advocate argued that in view of issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 996 P&AR Department, dated 22.9.1984, the persons
temporarily appointed as Junior Assistants in all the departments were given permanent appointment and therefore there was no vacancy for giving
promotion to the Record Clerks and consequently the petitioner was given promotion as Junior Assistant in the year 1995.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate.
A perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 22.1.1981 makes it clear that 10% of the vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant in all the departments
shall be filled up only by promoting the Record Clerks in that particular department. When the said Government Order is applicable to the Local
Fund Audit Department as well, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner, for which he is
entitled to from 25.6.1984. The said position is also made clear in the report of the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai-18 addressed to the
Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Chennai-9 in Na.Ka. No. 32310/Service 11(5)/2001, dated 22.1.2002. In the said report the Director of
Local Fund Audit recommended to the Government for giving promotion to the petitioner from 25.6.1984 along with four other persons.
In the impugned order, the Government, before considering the above said report has chosen to state that the order passed in T.A. No. 552 of
1991 is applicable only to HR&CE Department and the same is not applicable to petitioner''s Local Fund Audit Department. The said reasoning is
devoid of any merit. In view of my finding that the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 42 P&AR Department, dated 22.1.1984 is applicable to all the
departments, there is no force in the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the benefit is not applicable to the Local Fund Audit
Department.
Consequently the impugned order is unsustainable and the same is set aside. The petitioner shall be given seniority as Junior Assistant from
25.6.1984 without monetary benefit. He is also entitled to get all subsequent promotions based on the said promotion as Junior Assistant from
25.6.1984.
The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.