V RAMALINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Junior Assistant in a Town Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he joined the service on 2.4.1962 in Anthiyoor Panchayat Union. During 1967, he was promoted as a Head Clerk. Subsequently, he was reverted as a Junior Assistant. From 12.11.1974 onwards, he was posted as an Executive Officer, Grade-II. Under the relevant Service Rules, a Junior Assistant with five years of service and who had also passed the departmental tests, is entitled for promotion as an Executive Officer, Grade-I. According to the petitioner, he had completed the five year period on 2.4.1967, and had also passed the required test on 30.11.1969. In that view of the matter, he was eligible to get posted as Executive Officer. THE petitioner did not make any claim for such a posting either immediately after the passing of the test or within a reasonable time thereafter. He waited for one Chandrasekaran who was similarly placed, to move the Government for an appropriate order, and even that Chandrasekaran by orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No,298, Rural Development, dated 9.3.1982, got promotion as Executive Officer, Grade-I, with effect from the date of passing the order. THE petitioner also did not make a claim immediately thereafter, and just two years before his retirement, he filed O.A.No,3089/97 seeking for a re-fixation of his seniority by grant of posting as Executive Officer with effect from 30.11.1969 on the basis of a similarly placed person.

(2.) THE Tribunal without reference to Sec.21, admitted the O.A. and issued notice to the respondents. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No,30158 of 2006.

(3.) THE petitioner cannot move the Tribunal to revive a cause of action which took place 27 years ago and still claim that he was well within time in terms of Sec.21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Even though this Court is not trapped by such a provision and the jurisdiction under Article 226 is much wider, yet a stale claim cannot be entertained even by this Court as directed by the Supreme Court in C.Jacob's case that only a vigilant person will get relief from the Court, and such a cause of action cannot be revived by sending repeated representations.