LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-333

V GOVINDHARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

Decided On September 27, 2006
V.GOVINDHARAJAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.4.1997 and also for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Superintendent II with effect from 1.6.1993.

(2.) THE petitioner has joined in the service of the 2nd respondent in December 1978 and was confirmed as Junior Assistant in December 1979. In the year 1985, he was promoted as Assistant. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer in 1988, after he passed his P.G. Diploma in Personnel Management. Though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer, he was directed to work as Superintendent in the Management Information System (MIS) since 1988 and attended the training conducted by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) AFTER the promotion of the above said persons, the petitioner has made a representation. As per the Tamilnadu Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1953, the respondent establishment ought to have five Labour Welfare Officers since the work force of the 2nd respondent is more than 10,000. According to the petitioner, there is a vacancy in the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) for which post he is eligible. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.9573 of 1992 for a direction to promote him and the said writ petition was disposed of on 5.3.1997 directing the 2nd respondent to consider and promote the petitioner to the cadre of Senior Superintendent retrospectively from the date on which he is eligible for promotion. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed order on 18.4.1997 stating that there are two persons senior to the petitioner and there is no vacancy. The petitioner, therefore, filed a contempt application in Cont. Appln. No. 377 of 1997 which was dismissed on 14.10.1997. The reason for the non-promotion of the petitioner as Senior Superintendent with effect from 1.6.1993 as per the direction of this Court was because the petitioner has filed the writ petition and that he was not promoted.