LAWS(MAD)-1990-10-95

M. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ANR. Vs. TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER), MADRAS

Decided On October 30, 1990
M. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ANR. Appellant
V/S
TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER), MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions the prayer is for the issue of a writ off mandamus to direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner in each case as junior assistant from the post of the bill clerk with retrospective effect from 26 March 1983. It is not disputed that the Petitioners were not considered for promotion because of certain orders of punishment made against them. The punishment order was in the nature of dismissal in both the cases. The Petitioners challenged the order of dismissal and the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authorities. The authorities- again proceeded to rectify the defects pointed out by this Court and again issued a show cause notice for dismissal. The Petitioners filed writ petitions and obtained orders of stay and prevented the Respondents from passing orders of dismissal. However, sub- sequently the Petitioners seen to have relented and permitted the authorities to pass orders of punishment after taking note of the representations by the respective Petitioner. Accordingly, in Writ Petition No. 3941 of 1986 the Senior Regional Manager has reconsidered the order of dismissal and has imposed the punishment of fine to the tune of Rs.400. Similarly in the case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3942 of 1986 a fine of Rs.200 has been imposed. In both the cases it is not disputed that the period of suspension has been treated as period of duty. Under such circumstances there may not be any objection now for the Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner in each case for promotion from such retrospective date as they may be eligible or their juniors might have been promoted. This is the ultimate right of the Petitioners because the punishment of fine can- not be put against them for preventing them from getting their due promotion. Accordingly, I direct the Respondent, the Senior Regional Manager, to consider the claim of both the Petitioners for promotion from such retrospective date as they may be entitled to. I direct the Respondent to pass orders on or before 31 Dec. 1990 and also give such other benefits as the Petitioners may be entitled on the basis of such promotion. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.