A.T. Nathamuni vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This order will dispose of two-writ petitions.

W. P. No. 5677 of 1993 has been filled by one A.T. Nathamuni, while the other writ petition is filled by D. Arumugam.

Both the Petitioners were working in Vellore Electricity Corporation Limited and the Corporation was taken over by Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board, that is how both these persons'' came to be accommodated in the Tamil Electricity Board on 7.1.1974. They were made Junior Assistants.

Thereafter both of them were promoted to the post of Assistant. But having worked for twelve years in the post of Assistants, they were sought to

be reverted by an order dated 30.6.1987. An order to that effect was passed probably on account.

Of the fact that they did not have a proper qualification. It must be stated that both of them have not passed matriculation and the Account Test for

Subordinate Officers Part 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Account Test'' for the sake of brevity). They filed writ petitions. The writ petitions came

to be allowed on the ground that the officers were not given any opportunity before they were reverted in an unceremonious manner. It was

directed by the learned single Judge that they should be given an opportunity of being heard. The order of the learned single Judge was upheld by a

Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, they were served with a show cause notice. They gave their explanations. However they were reverted on

16.3.1993. This reversion is now challenged by the above Petitioners.

What is significant to note is that A.T. Nathamuni, Petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 5677 of 1993 reached the age of superannuation on

31.5.1996 and was allowed to retire. His provisional pension was sanctioned on 21.9.1996 and he was allowed to retire on 18.3.1998 and very

significantly he was allowed to retire as an Assistant, the post he was serving because of the stay order, i.e. the promoted post. Truly speaking, the

writ petition of Nathamuni has become infructuous, because, obviously he was allowed to retire. The Board will not be in a position to do anything

now, unless, of course, the Board decides to re-open the whole matter.

Regarding D. Arumugam, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5678 of 1993, significantly, though D. Arumugam had already retired on 31.10.2000 the

Board was slightly more vigilant and allowed him only provisional pension and declared that the question of his full pension would depend upon the

decision of this Court in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ Petitioner has come before this Court now.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners very strongly submitted that both the Petitioners have worked in their promoted

capacity right from 19.5.1975 till they retired. So, in the case of Nathamuni, he worked in his promoted capacity for 21 years, while Arumugam

worked in that capacity for 25 years. Of course there were intervening reversion orders, firstly on 30.6.1987 and secondly on 16.3.1993, but they

could not be executed thanks to the stay granted by this Court. In effect, both these officers have worked in their promoted capacity for 21 and 25

years respectively.

The learned Counsel then pointed out that the disqualification of not having passed Matriculation, was really of no consequence, for the simple

reason that, qualification did not come against the Petitioners, when they were firstly appointed as Junior Assistants. He pointed out that even for

the post of assistant, the educational qualification was passing of Matriculation and therefore for the post of assistant also their not having passed

matriculation was irrelevant. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has no quarrel with this proposition.

Therefore, the learned Counsel for Petitioners points out that if the educational qualification was ignored for the post of Junior Assistant, the same

should have and could have been ignored for the post of Assistant also, because for that post also, the educational qualification was identical.

My attention was also drawn to Board Proceedings No. 212 dated 6.8.1991, which is more or less on the same lines. In fact, this proceedings

was very heavily relied on by Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Even as regards the other aspect, as the objection against the grant of

promotion was that they have not passed the departmental examination viz. Account Test which is prescribed by rules. It is pointed out by Mr.

Radhakrishnan with reference to the Board Proceedings that, though for the promotion as Assistant, the educational qualification could be ignored,

considering that the educational qualification was identical for the post of Assistant as well as Junior Assistant, the requirement of passing of the

Account Test could not be so ignored and it was an admitted position that both the officers had not passed the Account Test.

My attention was invited by the learned Counsel Mr. Prasad to the general provision vide Rule 111 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service

Regulation and it was pointed out that there was a general power for the Board to deal with the case of any persons serving under the Board, in

such manner as may appear to the Board to be just and equitable. Relying very heavily on this, Mr. Prasad said that though technically the

Petitioners had not passed the test, the Board has had the advantage of their services in the promoted post for 21 and 25 years respectively at any

rate, without even their being questioned, for the first time, they woke up to realise that they have not passed the test, only after twelve years of

their promotion i.e. the year 1997. According to Mr. Prasad, it was their case where the Board should have activated its power under Rule 111.

He further said that as a matter of fact, in allowing one of the Petitioner Nathamuni to retire and granting him full pension in the post of Assistant,

the Board has de facto used its power, if not de jure. He further urged that the same attitude should be shown even to D. Arumugam, who has

been granted only provisional pension and whose fate hangs on the decision in this writ petition.

There cannot be any doubt that the qualification as well as the other condition off passing the Account Test are the relevant factors for the

promotion. However, it cannot be forgotten that rightly or wrongly, these two persons worked unquestionably for twelve years in promoted

capacity and thereafter also, probably on account of stay order in their favour, this Court protected their interests and allowed them to continue in

their promoted post. In my opinion, therefore, this was undoubtedly a case, where the Board would have been well justified in activating its powers

under Rule 111. However that is not the subject before me. I have to merely decide as to weather the Board''s action in reverting them is right or

not. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that both the persons have served under the Board without any blemish right from 1974 till they

retired and in their promoted capacity from 1975. To deprive them now of their promotion, Would be simply taking the attitude of shylock.

It would be therefore better for D. Arumugam to make a representation to the Board on the basis of the powers of the Board under Rule 111,

as also on the extra-ordinary facts which are involved in this matter. It is strongly hoped that the representation if made, shall be considered by the

Board in the light of the observation made in the judgment and in spirit of Rule 111. The representation shall be made at any rate, within one month

from today, while the Board would be well advised to dispose of the same within three months thereafter.

With the above observations, the writ petitions are closed. Consequently, WMP. Nos. 9111 and 9112 of 1993 are also closed.