Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 669 (MAD)

G. Kandasamy v. Commissioner

2012-02-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. In both these writ petitions, the challenge is to the promotion of 2nd respondent on the grounds that petitioners were senior to him as per date of joining with the Salem Municipality which was subsequently up-graded to the Corporation. 2. As the common question of law and facts are involved in these cases these are being disposed of by a common order. 3. However, for the sake of brevity the facts are being taken from W.P.No.4458 of 2007. 4. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the promotion of 2nd respondent with consequential relief of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to skilled Assistant Grade-I from the date 2nd respondent was promoted. 5. The petitioner was appointed as workmen with the Salem Municipality on 14.03.1990. The Salem Municipality was upgraded as Corporation in 1994. Service Conditions of the employees of the Corporation are governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Service Rules, 1996. Under the rules the Technical posts in the Engineering and Water Supply Department falls into three categories. (i) Technical Assistant Rs.1350-2200 (Revised Scale of Rs.4500-7000) (ii) Skilled Assistant (Grade-I) Rs.1100-1660 (Revised Scale of Rs.3625-4900) (iii) Skilled Assistant (Revised Scale of (Grade-II) Rs.975-1500 Rs.3050-4550) Petitioner was placed in the category of Skilled Assistant II who was workman, the 2nd respondent who was a meter reader in the same Municipality, was also brought in the category of Skilled Assistant Grade II. According to the service rules the seniority was required to be fixed as under: 4. FIXATION OF INTER-SE-SENIORITY ORDER THE NEW SERVICE RULES:-Since a number of posts in the General service and Engineering and Water supply service have been grouped under these new serving rules, it becomes necessary to fix inter-se-seniority for the existing employees in each category of posts. Most of the employees in the corporations might have come form the Municipal and Panchayat services. There may be employees directly appointed in the Corporations. The Commissioners of all these Corporations shall fix the inter-se-seniority of these employees within three months from the date of issue of these rules, taking into account of the following: (a) Date of first regular appointment of an individual in the service. There may be employees directly appointed in the Corporations. The Commissioners of all these Corporations shall fix the inter-se-seniority of these employees within three months from the date of issue of these rules, taking into account of the following: (a) Date of first regular appointment of an individual in the service. (temporary service in a post need not be considered) (b) Date of promotion to the first post of that individual and the date of promotion in the present post in which he is working as on date. (c) Present scale of pay of the individual and the pay he is now drawing in that scale of pay." The 2nd respondent was promoted to the post of Skilled Assistant Grade I by ignoring the case of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of promotion of 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent was junior to the petitioner in Skilled Grade II having joined the service on 19.03.1990, as against the petitioner who joined on 14.03.1990. 6. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no seniority list was circulated placing the petitioner to 2nd respondent. The claim of the petitioner is based merely on the date of joining. The reading of impugned order shows that the post of meter reading was carrying higher pay scale than that of workman, and according to service rules, the person getting higher scale of pay was to be placed senior to the persons getting lesser pay scale. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent was drawing higher pay than that of the petitioner therefore, on merger of the cadres of persons getting higher pay scale was to be placed senior to the person who was in the lower scale of pay, as per Rule 4 reproduced above. 7. The petitioner therefore cannot claim to be senior to 2nd respondent to challenge this promotion. 8. No merits. Dismissed.