Skip to content


K. Krishnan Nair Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1978)IILLJ40Mad
AppellantK. Krishnan Nair
RespondentGovt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the persons like the petitioner who were on deputation with the pallavan transport department were asked to exercise their option to be retained in the service of the pallavan transport corporation. though some of the persons like the petitioner exercised their option for retention in the pallavan transport corporation, the petitioner did not exercise the option......emoluments and enjoying the same service conditions and privileges as obtained in the tamil nadu state transport corporation department. the persons like the petitioner who were on deputation with the pallavan transport department were asked to exercise their option to be retained in the service of the pallavan transport corporation. though some of the persons like the petitioner exercised their option for retention in the pallavan transport corporation, the petitioner did not exercise the option. as a result the petitioner continued to be an employee of the state transport department though he has been serving on deputation under the pallavan transport corporation. the fact that the petitioner continues even now to be an employee of the tamil nadu state transport corporation.....
Judgment:

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. The petitioner was working as a Traffic Inspector in the Tamil Nadu State Trans. port Department, the second respondent herein. On the formation of Pallava Trans-port Corporation by G.O. Ms. No. 86 dated 8-11-1971, the petitioner on 1-1-1972 was deputed to serve the said Corporation. Prom that day onwards the petitioner has been working in the said Corporation on deputation raceiving the same emoluments and enjoying the same service conditions and privileges as obtained in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Department. The persons like the petitioner who were on deputation with the Pallavan Transport Department were asked to exercise their option to be retained in the service of the Pallavan Transport Corporation. Though some of the persons like the petitioner exercised their option for retention in the Pallavan Transport Corporation, the petitioner did not exercise the option. As a result the petitioner continued to be an employee of the State Transport Department though he has been serving on deputation under the Pallavan Transport Corporation. The fact that the petitioner continues even now to be an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Department cannot be and has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. As a matter of fact in a proceeding issued by the Director, State Transport Department dated 22-4-1972 the petitioner has been shown as No, 1 in the panel for promotion to the Traffic Managers cadre. The panel is said to be provisional for a period of one year during which time the persons listed in the panel have to acquire the requisite qualifications. Since the petitioner has passed the requisite tests within the period mentioned tharein, he has acquired a right for promotion as per the said panel The petitioner who has been included in the provisional panel has actually been promoted and posted as a Traffic Manager in the scale of pay of Rs. 400-15. 475-20-575-25-650. But, the said order dated 22-4-1972 promoting the petitioner as traffic Manager has kept in abeyance by a further order dated 39-4-1972. The said order does not give any reasons as to why the promotion of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance. However, by a further order dated 26-3-1974 three persons who are shown as Nos. 2, 9 and 10 in the provisional panel prepared on 22-4-1972 had been promoted temporarily as Traffic Managers under Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. This order also does not indicate as to why the order dated 22.4-1972 promoting the petitioner as a Traffic Manager had not been given effect to and the persons in the provisional panel prepared on 22-4-1972 who are juniors to the petitioner should be appointed though temporarily as Traffic Managers. The said order promoting the petitioner's juniors as Traffic Managers ignoring the claims of the petitioner has been challenged in this writ petition,

2. According to the petitioner, he continues to be a member of the service under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department though he is serving as a Traffic Inspector in the Paliavan Transport Corporation on deputation, and his claim for promotion cannot be overlooked merely on the basis that he is serving in the Pallavan Transport Corporation which is not of his choice and In fact he has not exercised his option for the retention in the laid Corporation and. therefore, he should have been promoted in the State Transport Department. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continues to have lien in the parent department and he is in fact been promoted as Traffic Manager by an order dated 22-4-1972. The counter-affidavit does not disclose any reason as to why the petitioner's promotion which was on 22-4-1972 by the State Transport Department was not given effect to and his juniors were appointed on 26-3-1974. The ostensible reason given in the counter-affidavit is that the appointment of the respondents 3 to 5 as Traffic Managers ordered on 26-3-1974 is purely temporary under Rule 39(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner was called back from the Pallavan Transport Corporation to rejoin the parent department and to take up the post of the Traffic Department Manager, and that the petition or was unwilling to come over to the parent department. The petitioner who had been sent on deputation to the Pallavan Transport Corporation had no choice to resist the order of deputation. When the petitioner had no choice except to serve the Paliaven Transport Corporation on the basis of the order of deputation he cannot be penalised by not giving a promotion on the basis that he is not readily available to take up the post of Traffic Manager. In this view the impugned order dated 26-3-1974 promo-ting the respondents 3 to 5 though on a temporary basis, as Traffic Managers, cannot be sustained. The learned Government Pleader would point out that the appointment is only temporary and it does not confirm any permanent status on those persons and that as and when the service rules are framed the petitioner may get his due place. But, even in the matter of temporary promotion persons who are seniors and duly qualified for promotion cannot be ignored. In this view the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //