S GANAPATHY Vs. V PANDIRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have been fighting a long battle at least from 1984, when they first came to this Court with a writ petition. The appellants and the contesting respondents are employees of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation ('Corporation' for short). The appellants were originally Assistant Quality Inspectors ('AQIs' for short). They were ousted from service, but re -employed in a lower grade as Junior Assistants, without following the last -come -first -go rule, while their juniors were retained as AQIs. AQIs belong to the Technical Wing of the Corporation, while Junior Assistants belong to the Administrative Wing. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the order rejecting their request to reckon their services as AQIs for future promotions and other benefits.

(2.) Their grievance was that when their juniors, who were continuing as AQIs, enjoyed career advancements, they were lagging behind. Writ Petition Nos.2707, 2708 and 2904 of 1984 were filed by appellants 3, 4 and 9 herein respectively, and were disposed of on 23.4.1992. This Court found that before dealing with the controversy, it should be ascertained whether in fact there was any discrimination and the writ petitioners were directed to file their respective representations before the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Corporation, who in turn, was directed to give notice to all persons concerned and after affording opportunity, and to decide the matter including the question whether there was any violation of the last -come -first -go rule and to restore the seniority properly.

(3.) An enquiry was duly held on 2.2.1994. At the enquiry, the writ petitioners cited the names of their juniors S. Sankara Pandian, K. Guru Rajan, P. Parthiban, Mohana Sundaram, C. Rajendran and Karuppaswamy, who were retained in their services as AQIs, while the writ petitioners had been ousted. They also cited the names of those Mill Technical Assistants who were given the benefits of Assistants by taking into account the service that they had rendered earlier, viz., K. Ramalingam and K. Shanmugam etc. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on 25.11.1993. Thereupon, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, by proceedings in Rc.No.E7/44183/92 dated 2.2.1994, considered and held that the suggestion of the Enquiry Officer that the services of the writ petitioners must be regularized in the cadre of Assistant from the date of their first appointment was reasonable and just. Therefore, there was an order that the service rendered by them in the cadre of Junior Assistant will be computed as Assistant for the purpose of qualifying service, seniority, probation etc., but they will not be eligible for arrears of pay and allowances. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.4329 of 1997 by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union and respondents 1 to 3 (in W.A. No.2381 of 2004). The respondent in the above writ petition was the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, represented by the Senior Regional Manager and eleven others, including the appellants who had filed Nos.2707, 2708 and 2904 of 1984. According to the Union and the other writ petitioners, the impugned order, which gave the respondent/employees the 47th position, had superseded hundreds of persons who were senior to them by reason of having greater length of service in the Administrative Wing. On 31.7.1998, this writ petition was disposed of by this Court, setting aside the enquiry report on the ground that the Corporation had misconstrued the directions given by this Court, which were not a carte blanche to the respondents to do whatever they liked, ignoring the legitimate expectation of those initially appointed to the Administrative Wing, in the name of rendering justice. The Court directed that the Corporation should again hold a fresh enquiry in terms of the order passed in W.P. No.2707 of 1984 mentioned earlier, after giving notice to all concerned, particularly the AQIs who had continued in service, though juniors, and all those in the Administrative Wing who are likely to be affected. Thereafter, an order was passed on 9.4.1999 after an enquiry, during which more than 50 persons were heard. By this order, again the seniority of the appellants herein was fixed by taking into account their earlier service.