The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu vs A. Shankar

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Heard Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 1854 of 2005, dated 26.9.2011, wherein the respondent has prayed to quash the punishment order imposed in G.O. (3D) No. 20, Highways (HL3) Department, dated 04.2.2004 and direct the appellant to grant increments and all consequential benefits with effect from the date of the order dated 04.2.2004 with all service benefits.

The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge, giving direction to the appellant to include the name of the respondent in the promotion panel to the post of Divisional Engineer prepared on 26.2.1998 by revising the seniority of the respondent and fixing him in the appropriate place and to give him all consequential notional service and monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

The said order was passed by the learned single Judge based on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, reported in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, holding that on expiry of currency of punishment, the respondent is entitled to get his name included in the promotion panel.

The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged in this writ appeal by contending that even though on the crucial date on 26.2.1998, no charge memo was pending against the respondent, the actual promotion was given to the persons, whose names were found in the promotion panel only on 01.1.2003 and before the promotion was given that was on 7.10.1998, a charge memo was issued to the respondent and after conducting an enquiry, by G.O. (3D) No. 20, Highways (HL. 3) Department, dated 04.2.2004, the respondent was imposed with an order of punishment withholding his increment for three years without cumulative effect and the currency of punishment was over only on 03.2.2007. Therefore, the learned single Judge was not right in giving direction to the appellant to give promotion to the respondent from the date of promotion given to the respondent''s juniors.

The learned Special Government Pleader also submits that the effect of the Full Bench decision, reported in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Director General of Police Vs. V. Rani, was taken away by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.2.2014 giving retrospective effect to amend Rule 4(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1961 holding that if a person suffered with punishment other than Censure, check period of five years will be imposed from claiming promotion. Further, the currency of punishment of the respondent was over only in the year 2007. In the light of the said fact, the direction given by the learned single Judge that the appellant should give promotion to the respondent from the date of promotion given to the respondent''s juniors, cannot be sustained.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.2.2014 giving retrospective effect has been challenged before this Court by filing various writ petitions and the same are pending.

In the light of the above said submission, the writ appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the respondent to claim promotion with effect from 04.2.2007, if ultimately, the retrospective amending the Rule in G.O. Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.2.2014 was set aside by this Court in a batch of writ petitions filed. The order of the learned single Judge, is set aside with above liberty. No costs.