JOINT SECRETARY (RETIRED), MUNICIPAL ADMN AND WATER SUPPLY DEPT Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, P AND AR (U SPL) DEPARTMENT AND REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions raise common questions of law relating to interpretation of G.O.Ms. No. 126 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl) Department dated 29.5.1998. All these writ petitions which are directed against the common order passed by the Tribunal in several Original Applications have been heard together and shall be governed by the present common order.

(2.) Till 1961, each and every Department in the Government Secretariat had a separate unit for appointment, promotion, etc. In the year 1960, the special rules for Madras Secretariat Service was amended, where under all the Departments in the Secretariat were made "ONE UNIT" for the purpose of appointment and promotion. By G.O.Ms. No. 70, dated 17.1.1961 issued by the Public (Services) Department of the Tamil Nadu Government, all the Departments in the Secretariat, including Law and Finance, were brought under a common unit, which was known as "ONE UNIT". Appointment to all entry level posts, i.e., Junior Assistants (subsequently re-designated as Assistants), Assistants (subsequently re-designated as Assistant Section Officers), Typists/Personal Clerks were to be made from the common list of candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Consequently, promotion to different higher posts in different departments were also being made from such employees. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms. No. 1290 Public (Services) Department, dated 5.6.1970, Finance and Law Departments were excluded from "ONE UNIT" system. However, the entry level posts in the cadre of Assistants, Assistant Section Officers, Typists/Personal Clerks continued to be filled up from the common list of candidates, but so far as Finance and Law Departments were concerned, further promotions in such departments were effected from among the employees allotted to such Departments. The allotment to Finance Department was not on the basis of any particular criterion, but the candidates were allotted at random and may be on the basis of option of any particular candidate.

(3.) The petitioners have contended that they are not seeking for any promotion to any specific post on par with the employees in the Finance Department. Their only contention is to the effect that G.O.Ms. No. 126 dated 29.5.1998 is also applicable to them as they were recruited to "ONE UNIT" prior to the date contemplated, namely, 28.1.1994. It is further stated by them that even though financial benefit under such G.O., is made applicable prospectively with effect from the date of such G.O., eligibility of a person to get such benefit has been made clear in paragraphs 10 and 11 of such G.O.