R. PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU
LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-187
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on January 21,2020

R. PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMILNADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) According to the petitioner, petitioner was appointed as Skilled Assistant on 5.4.1991 and he joined duty on 12.4.1991. The petitioner's service was regularised along with fourth respondent only on 12.6.1996, whereas in the case of others, after completion of two years of service w.e.f. 22.8.1992 Petitioner filed W.P.No.8215 of 2001 before this Court for Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner as Skilled Assistant w.e.f. 22.8.1992. This Court passed an order, dated 30.6.2009 directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.2.2000 within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the third respondent vide Memo No.1696/IRTT/Est./NT14/AAP/2009, dated 23.6.2009 passed an order reiterating the order of regularization w.e.f. 12.6.1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.5797 of 2010 and the same is pending before this Court. This Court in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in W.P.No.5797 of 2010 directed the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for Selection Grade scale of pay on completion of ten years in the post of Skilled Assistant as on 12.6.2006. Pursuant to the order, dated 25.5.2011 passed by the second respondent, the Special Officer, IRT Polytechnic College, Burgur passed an order in proceedings No.01/SO/Supdt./ IRTPC/PGR/2011, dated 20.6.2011 awarding Selection Grade w.e.f. 12.6.2006 whereupon petitioner's designation has been re-designated as Skilled Assistant Grade I from Skilled Assistant Grade II. According to the writ petitioner, after granting the benefit of Selection Grade on 20.6.2011, the Special Officer, IRT Polytechnic College, Burgur, Krishnagiri District has sent a proposal along with his performance report for promotion to the post of Lab technician in Lr.No.01/SO/Est./2011, dated 20.10.2011. Even after three years, the respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any decision to grant promotion to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sent several representations to the respondents 1 to 3 to grant Selection Grade with effect from the date on which his junior C.Ravi was granted Selection Grade, viz., 22.8.2002 and promote him to the post of Lab Technician w.e.f. 23.8.2010. But none of them have been considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondent on completion of two years of service on par with his junior, whereas petitioner's service was regularized only on 12.6.1996 and consequently, Selection Grade was awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.6.2006, whereas the petitioner is eligible to get Selection Grade w.e.f. 22.8.2002 and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Lab Technician w.e.f. 23.8.2010.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and would submit that challenging the order, dated 23.9.2009 by the third respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.5797 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court by considering the relevant rules to regularize the petitioner's service as Skilled Assistant w.e.f. 22.8.1992. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.