S.RAMAA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition as against the Order dated 28.03.2012 made in O.A.No.19 of 2011 passed by the 5th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Madras.

(2.) THE 5th Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while passing orders on 28.03.2012 in O.A.No.19 of 2011 (filed by the Petitioner/Applicant) has, in Paragraphs 18 and 19, among other things observed that "From the contentions of the Respondents, it is seen that the Applicant can be considered for promotion only with effect from 06.11.2000, because the post of Steno-cum-Typist was re-designated as LDC only with effect from that date. It is pertinent to note that it is by converting one post of LDC to that of Steno-cum-Typist that the Applicant was absorbed as a regular employee on 15.06.1990. The Respondents themselves have conceded that the Applicant does not fulfill the qualification for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade-III and they have relaxed the conditions in favour of her. The only reason given by the Respondents for not regularising her from earlier date is that the post of Stenographer was converted to LDC only in 2000 and that she was granted exemption from passing the Tamil typewriting test (lower) only in 2006. But, considering the fact that the Applicant was absorbed in the post of Steno-cum-typist on a regular basis on 15.06.1990, by converting a post of LDC to that of Steno-cum-Typist and since she was qualified for appointment to that post as per the rules then existing and since the Respondents have relaxed the other conditions in her favour, the Respondents contention that promotion can be given only with effect from the date of conversion of Steno-cum-Typist to LDC do not seem to be reasonable. Similarly, the other contentions of the Respondents that orders granting exemption to the Applicant from passing the Tamil Typewriting test was issued only on 19.05.2006 and therefore, she can be considered for promotion only from that date, is also not supported by any valid rules, instructions or any legal findings. Therefore, this contention of the Respondents is also to be rejected as unsubstantiated " and consequently, held that though the Applicant (Writ Petitioner) has not made out a case for counting her service for the period from 1980 to 1990, she can be considered for further promotions taking into account her service from the date of her regular appointment to Government service namely from 11.04.1990 and directed the Respondents to take into consideration the services of the Applicant (Writ Petitioner) from 11.04.1990 for the purpose of calculating the period of service for further promotions and grant promotions to the higher Grades notionally with effect from the date on which she could have been promoted, if the period of service from 11.04.1990 is taken into account and disposed of the Original Application accordingly.

(3.) FURTHER , the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that during the year 1979, the Honourable Mr.Justice S.Govindasamy (later died), while he was an Advocate, was appointed as the Government Pleader for Pondicherry and he secured an accommodation in the High Court premises itself to accommodate the Government Pleader office of Puducherry. At that point of time, there was a need for Stenographer in the said office.