R.SAMBOSHINI Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.05.2015, wherein and whereby, the petitioner's request for promotion to the post of Senior Supervisor from the post of Telephone Operator was rejected. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to upgrade the petitioner's scale and promote her to the post of Senior Supervisor.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Telephone Operator on 22.02.1985 at the office of the Director of Agriculture, Chennai-5. For the post of Telephone Operator, there is no avenue for promotion. Therefore, the Association of Telephone Operators working in the Secretariat made a representation to the Government to upgrade the post of Telephone Operator as Telephone Supervisor. Consequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.26 P and AR Department dated 23.01.1995 creating three posts of Telephone operators as Telephone Supervisors. One R.V.Deenadayalan, who was working as Telephone Operator made a request to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.26. When his request was rejected, he filed a Writ petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the Writ Court. However, in the Writ Appeal No.1188/2009 dated 15.07.2010, the Division Bench allowed the claim of R.V.Deenadayalan and directed the respondents therein to promote the said person as Senior Supervisor and grant similar pay. The said order was implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.11, Agriculture Department dated 14.01.2011. Since the petitioner and the said Deenadayalan were working in the same Agriculture Department and when the benefit of upgradation of post was given to the said Deenadayalan, similar benefits should be given to the petitioner as well. However, the said request was rejected only on the reason that the benefit given to the said Deenadayalan was in pursuant to the Court order, that too, as a special case and on humanitarian ground.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: