T.S.RAMALINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the respondent as Assistant Engineer on 23.7.1979 and after putting about 34 years of service and receiving various promotions and with an unblemished service, the petitioner retired from the post of Executive Engineer on 28.2.2013. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that though he was fully qualified to be promoted as Superintending Engineer during the year 2012, or for that matter even before his superannuation, however, he was not promoted inspite of there being vacancies due to the delay caused by the respondents in finalising the panel for the year 2012-2013 and, therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the relief supra.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that according to Rule 4 (a) of the General Rules, the respondents are bound to prepare a panel annually containing the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the next higher category. The crucial date for preparation of the panel is 1.4.2012 for the panel pertaining to the year 2012-2013 and for the panel pertaining to the year 2011- 2012, the crucial date is 1.4.2011. In the panel drawn for the year 2011-2012, names of many of the persons, who were senior to the petitioner, though found included, who were to retire on or before October, 2012, thereby, the petitioner would be within the zone of consideration even during the year 2011-2012, when the panel was drawn, however, the vacancies estimated were only 33 without taking into consideration the persons who will be retiring during the year 2012. Therefore, the petitioner's name was not included in the panel for the year 2011- 2012. However, though the petitioner was senior and was to have been included in the panel prepared for the period 2012-2013, the crucial date for preparation of panel was 1.4.2012, however, the said panel was prepared belatedly on 6.3.13 and approved only after the superannuation of the petitioner, thereby denying him the promotion. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that instructions for preparation of panel has been issued by the Personnel & Administrative Department giving explicit instructions as to how the panel has to be prepared and what are the parameters that needs to be taken into consideration while arriving at the vacancies and the persons to be considered for inclusion in the panel. However, giving a go-by to the above instructions, the panel has been prepared with much delay for the year 2012- 2013 and the name of the petitioner was not also included in the panel, which has deprived the petitioner of his promotion. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to forego the arrears of salary in case promotion is granted and the promotion may be even granted notionally for the period 2012- 2013 for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to get his terminal benefits and pensionary benefits fixed as per the notional promotion.

(3.) Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that there has been delay in preparing the panel for the period 2012-2013, but which was unavoidable due to the circumstances beyond the control of the respondents and the said delay was neither wilful or wanton. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the name of the petitioner was not considered for the drawal of panel for the year 2011-2012, as his turn did not come up and seniors to the petitioners were available. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the estimate of vacancy, panel and promotion are all made in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions and the contention of the petitioner preparation of panel was not in accordance with the instructions issued for preparation of panel is not correct. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted with the order impugned herein.