KALIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 30. 10. 1989 of the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai and the order dated 11. 9. 1992 of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious Endowments Department, Chennai and sought for a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pay on par with that of his immediate junior one Mr. Lingamaraja, in the cadre of Executive officer, Grade-I and claimed payment of arrears of salary from the date of his actual promotion in the said post.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:

(3.) WHEN there was a delay in finalisation of seniority list of Grade-I, Executive Officers, the said Lingamaraja was promoted as Executive Officer Grade-I on 2. 2. 1969, whereas, the petitioner, who was eligible for promotion to the said post, was promoted only on 29. 3. 1976. It is further submitted that when promotions were made on the basis of the defunct seniority list, the same were challenged in this court in W. P. Nos. 1407 of 1985, 3238 of 1985 and 4575 of 1985 and the writ petitions were allowed. As a result, persons who had been promoted from the old list were reverted and the seniority list was revised and published as per proceedings of the Commissioner dated 17. 10. 1984. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Commissioner. As the petitioner's junior was drawing an higher pay scale in the post of Executive Officer Grade-I, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30. 9. 1989 to the Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. , Administration Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein. The petitioner received a reply from the Commissioner dated 30. 10. 1989, stating that the Government and Mr. Lingamaraja have preferred W. A. No. 84 of 1986, W. A. No. 82 of 1986 and W. A. No. 876 of 1985 and since the appeals were pending, the petitioner' pay cannot be re-fixed on par with that of his junior and only after disposal of the appeals, fixation of seniority would be taken up and settled duly applying the amended Rules 35 (aa) and the proviso thereto and the petitioner was informed that as per Rule 35 (aa) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Officers Service Rules, the benefit of the first proviso (i. e. appointment on par with that of his junior and restoration of seniority in lower grade) shall be available to the senior, only for the purpose of fixing the inter-se seniority. In view of the above provision, the claim of fixation of pay on par with that of his junior does not arise. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 30. 10. 1989, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent to fix his pay on par with that of his immediate junior Thiru. Lingamaraja in the post of Executive Officer Grade-I. The Government by the impugned order 11. 9. 1992 rejected the claim of the petitioner and the same was challenged before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal for the relief as stated supra.