Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 140 (MAD)

G. R. Balaji v. The Transport Commissioner

2012-01-09

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to include the petitioners name in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion as Superintendents for the year 2010-2011 by placing him at the appropriate place with due seniority, with a consequent prayer to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Superintendent with effect from 25.08.2010, i.e., the date of promotion of his immediate junior. 2. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that the petitioner had suffered the punishment of reduction in rank, therefore, the petitioner was not fit for promotion. 3. The case of the petitioner, is that the order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of writ petition. This Court accepted the writ filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of reversion by modifying the punishment to one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 4. In view of the fact that due to reversion of the petitioner, he was not granted increment, this Court ordered, that order of stoppage of increment would be operative for the year 2008-2009. The period stands expired. 5. The case of the petitioner, therefore, is that in view of the expiry of the period of punishment, the petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted to the post of Superintendent from the day, his immediate junior was promoted. As the minor punishment cannot come in the way of further promotion in view of the decision of Honble Full Bench in the case of DIG of Police, Thanjavore Versus Rani (2011) 3 CTC 121. 6. On notice, counter has been filed, wherein, the fact the petitioner has to be considered for promotion as Superintendent in the panel of Assistants fit for promotion as Superintendents drawn for the year 2010-2011 is not disputed. The only ground raised is that after the sanction of leave by the Government, the case of promotion will be considered from due date, in case of regularisation of the leave. 7. Paragraph 7 of the counter reads as under: "(7.) It is respectfully submitted that the individual was restored to his original post of Assistant on 25/11/2010 in proceedings R.No.55331/R3/2010 and joined on 01/12/2010. 7. Paragraph 7 of the counter reads as under: "(7.) It is respectfully submitted that the individual was restored to his original post of Assistant on 25/11/2010 in proceedings R.No.55331/R3/2010 and joined on 01/12/2010. After joining as Assistant no panel was drawn for the post of Superintendent. The name of the individual will be considered in the panel of Assistant fit for promotion as Superintendent for the year 2010-2011, subject to the sanction of leave by the Government and implementation of punishment of one year stoppage of increment without cumulative effect." 8. In view of stand taken in paragraph 7 of the counter, this petition is disposed of with a direction, to the respondent to take a final decision on the leave application of the petitioner within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order, and in the event of its acceptance to pass appropriate order of promotion immediately thereafter. 9. No costs.