S SIVASHANMUGAM Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, S.Sivashanmugam, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent dated 05.05.2004 bearing ref.No.009428/30/G25/G252/2004-1, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from 24.07.96, when the petitioner completes 14 years of service.

(2.) THE petitioner, after joining service of the respondent Board, as Assessor, completed 22 years of service in the respondent Board at the time of filing the present writ petition. On various representations given by several unions, in an effort to avoid stagnation in one particular post, settlement was entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per clause 4 of the settlement, an employee, who puts in 14 years of service as on the date of settlement, will be promoted as Regular/Supernumerary Inspector of Assessment allowing the pay of Inspector of Assessment. THErefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on completion of 14 years of service in the respondent Board, the promotion is automatic to the immediate higher promotional post. In his further submission, he further stated that the promotion cannot be denied, unless a charge of misappropriation or moral turpitude is pending against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had completed 14 years of service in the year 2004, the respondent denied giving promotion to the petitioner. THE petitioner suffered punishment of stoppage of increment for one year on 22.08.2003. Though the same came to an end on 13.07.2004, the respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. However, again the petitioner suffered another punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months by order dated 05.05.2006. Though the said order came to be completed on 1.12.06, the petitioner was given promotion only in December, 2007.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.