N SARAVANAKUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner N.Saravanakumar, working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grande II has come to this court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 aggrieved by order passed by the respondent the Commissioner of Transport, Chennai seeking to quash the same with a further direction to consider his claim for promotion as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I without reference to the charge memo issued in Letter No. 9206/Tr.II/2007/24 dated 17.4.2008 and promote him as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I in the panel for the year 2007-2008 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

(2.) MR.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II on 24.10.2000. While the petitioner was serving as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II , he became due for promotion as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I in the panel year 2007-08, but the claim of the petitioner was overlooked on the ground that the petitioner's service was not regularised. But at the same time, the petitioner's batchmate one Ayyasamy who was appointed on 6.12.2000 was considered. Though the petitioner became eligible for promotion as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I in the year 2007-08, in view of non-regularisation of his service, his name was overlooked by the respondents. Again the petitioner's claim for promotion was considered for the panel year 2008-09 and once again his name was overlooked by the respondent for the same reason viz., for want of regularisation of service. Again, when his name was taken up for consideration for the panel year 2009-10, the respondent deferred the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was facing a disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of G.O.D.No.436 Home (Trans.II) Dept., dated 17.4.2008. The petitioner was again overlooked for the panel year 2010-11, due to the pending disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) THEREFORE the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner has placed three fold submissions:- (i) Firstly it is the admitted case of both side that when the petitioner was serving as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, the respondent has passed a proceeding dated 9.5.2007 informing that the petitioner has become fit for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I. THEREFORE, on the crucial date viz., 15.3.2007 when the petitioner did not suffer any disciplinary proceedings, the respondent should have considered the case of the petitioner in view of subsequent regularisation passed by the respondent on 14.10.2010 giving effect from the date of his original appointment. (ii) His second submission is that subsequent to the crucial date, even on the date of consideration viz., 9.5.2007, admittedly there was no charges nor disciplinary proceedings initiated or pending against the petitioner. THEREFORE, on these two crucial dates, when the petitioner has not given any room for any initiation of departmental proceedings or adverse entry in his service registers as mentioned by the respondent in their order that the petitioner is fit for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, for the reason that the regularisation order was issued only on 14.10.2010, of course with effect from the initial date of appointment and in the meanwhile for the reason he suffered a charge memo dated 17.4.2008, the respondent cannot deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I. (iii) Thirdly, he has further submitted that though the order dated 14.10.2010 regularising the service of the petitioner with effect from the initial date of appointment is a belated one for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Had the respondent passed the regularisation order before the crucial date or before the date of consideration the petitioner's name would have been properly considered for the promotional post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I . Since the respondent has taken belated time in passing the regularisation order dated 14.10.2010 giving the benefit of regularisation from the date of initial date of appointment, subsequent issuance of charge memo dated 17.4.2008 cannot work against the petitioner for getting the benefit of promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I for the reason that he kept his service records very clear as on the crucial date viz., dated 15.3.2007 and also on the date of consideration dated 9.5.2010.