K SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: Since the facts involved in both the petitions are identical, the writ petitions are taken together and a common order is passed.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of V. Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and V.R.Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents and have perused the records.

(3.) K.Shanmugasundaram, the petitioner in W.P. No. 22389 of 2006, was working as an Additional Panchayat Union Engineer, Pullambody Panchayat Union at the relevant time and Kalaivanan was working as an Assistant Engineer in the National Highways Quality Control section at Tiruchirapalli. In the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 22389 of 2006, it is stated that by G.O. Ms. No. 57, Highways (HK 1) Department dated 17.3.2006 issued by the Government, they are to be temporarily promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer in Category 4 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Services with effect from the date of their assumption of duty based on the posting orders issued by the Chief Engineer, Highways Department, the petitioners? names are found as serial No.41 and 22 respectively. It is also stated that on receipt of the said order, the second respondent did not give any posting order, which prompted the petitioner in W.P. No. 22389 of 2006 to write a letter dated 9.5.2006 to the second respondent stating that at the time when the promotion order was made, a report was sent by the Panchayat Union Commissioner that there was no charges pending against him vide his letter dated 2.8.2005 and, therefore, when the Government issued order dated 17.3.2006 promoting the petitioner temporarily, there was no impediment to assume charge. However, it is stated by him that on 24.4.2006, he received a letter from the second respondent enclosing a charge memo given to him under Rule 17(B) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and according to him, the subsequent charge memo should not be used as a tool to deny him promotion which was accorded to him earlier. When he did not receive any reply and when he found that 114 persons, who were found in the Government Order, have been given necessary posting orders, and he and the petitioner in the other writ petition alone have been denied posting order, which is illegal, filed the writ petition being W.P.No.22389 of 2006.