Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2883 (MAD)

P. Gangadharan v. The Registrar General & Another

2007-09-06

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2007
Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, who was in Judicial Service of the State, having been denied promotion pursuant to earlier seniority, requested for consideration of his case for restoration of his seniority and promotion to the cadre of Sub-Judge, with effect from the date his junior was promoted. But the High Court, on its Administrative Side, by impugned Official Memorandum in R.O.C.No.111/94-Con.B2, dated 12. 1999, rejected the same on the ground that he superannuated from service on 30.6.1999. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 2. 1979; due to wrong reflection of seniority, his case was not considered for promotion, while the case of others, including one Sankaranarayana Pillai was considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Judge, who was granted such promotion on 22. 1998. 3. It is not disputed that when the case of Sankaranarayana Pillai was considered for promotion with effect from 22. 1998, the case of the petitioner was not considered, having been shown lower in the seniority list. 4. The dispute relating to seniority was finally settled by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2108-2109 of 1997, dated 8. 1999. After the order of the Supreme Court, the High Court, on the Administrative Side, fixed the seniority on 9. 1999 and the petitioners position in the seniority list was shown at Sl.No.100, whereas the name of Sankaranarayana Pillai was shown at Sl.No.103. Having restored the seniority, when the petitioner requested for grant of consequential benefit of promotion from the date his junior was so promoted, impugned order of rejection, dated 12. 1999, was forwarded by the High Court on the Administrative Side. 5. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents. The only stand taken by the respondents is that by the time the High Court finalised the seniority, the petitioner superannuated from service. 6. It is settled law that the seniority vis-a-vis promotion among the persons, shall stand determined in terms of rules on appointment to the cadre/service. The seniority list is merely a declaration given by the competent authority showing the position of the members of the cadre/service in order of seniority. 7. 6. It is settled law that the seniority vis-a-vis promotion among the persons, shall stand determined in terms of rules on appointment to the cadre/service. The seniority list is merely a declaration given by the competent authority showing the position of the members of the cadre/service in order of seniority. 7. As the petitioner is admittedly senior to Thiur.Sankaranarayana Pillai, which was finally accepted after the judgment of Supreme Court, the respondents, including the High Court on its Administrative side, cannot deny the consequential benefit of promotion to the higher post from the date the petitioners junior Sankaranarayan Pillai was promoted. 8. The petitioner having superannuated from service may not hold the post, but if found fit and promoted, he shall be entitled for consequential monetary benefits, including the revised retiral benefits. 9. We accordingly remit the matter with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) with effect from 22. 1998 i.e. from the date his junior Sankaranayana Pillai was promoted and to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. If found fit and promoted, the petitioner would be entitled for consequential monetary benefits, including the revised retiral benefits, as observed above, to be paid within two months from the date of passing orders regarding fixation of notional promotion. 10. We make it clear that the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law taking into consideration the service records as on 22. 1998 without being influenced by the records of the subsequent period. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. But there shall be no order as to costs.