IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:26.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.34713 of 2004 S.Sivashanmugam ... Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chief Engineer (Personnel), 8th Floor, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the respondent dated 05.05.2004 bearing ref.No.009428/30/G25/G252/2004-1, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from 24.07.96 when the petitioner completes 14 years of service and to pass such other orders. For Petitioner :Mr.Balan Haridoss For Respondent :Mr.M.Vaidyanathan ORDER The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, S.Sivashanmugam, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent dated 05.05.2004 bearing ref.No.009428/30/G25/G252/2004-1, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from 24.07.96, when the petitioner completes 14 years of service. 2. The petitioner, after joining service of the respondent Board, as Assessor, completed 22 years of service in the respondent Board at the time of filing the present writ petition. On various representations given by several unions, in an effort to avoid stagnation in one particular post, settlement was entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As per clause 4 of the settlement, an employee, who puts in 14 years of service as on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of settlement, will be promoted as Regular/Supernumerary Inspector of Assessment allowing the pay of Inspector of Assessment. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on completion of 14 years of service in the respondent Board, the promotion is automatic to the immediate higher promotional post. In his further submission, he further stated that the promotion cannot be denied, unless a charge of misappropriation or moral turpitude is pending against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had completed 14 years of service in the year 2004, the respondent denied giving promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner suffered punishment of stoppage of increment for one year on 22.08.2003. Though the same came to an end on 13.07.2004, the respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. However, again the petitioner suffered another punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months by order dated 05.05.2006. Though the said order came to be completed on 1.12.06, the petitioner was given promotion only in December, 2007. 3. In his further submission, it was stated that when the petitioner completed 14 years of service, as per Settlement dated 24.12.2003, on the crucial date, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Therefore, there being no pending disciplinary proceedings, non-consideration for promotion is without any basis and on that basis prayed for the aforesaid prayer. 4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the contention of the petitioner that an employee working in the respondent Board is entitled to get promotion on completion of 14 years of service by virtue of Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act, 1947, but the petitioner even before the date of settlement, suffered disciplinary proceedings and the respondent Board has initiated the disciplinary proceedings on 22.08.2003. Again, the petitioner has given room for second disciplinary proceedings and the same also culminated into a punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months by order dated 05.05.2006. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been promoted twice. The petitioner was found eligible for promotion as Inspector of Assessment and he was duly promoted on 19.12.2007 and yet again, the name of the petitioner has been included for further promotional post of Revenue Supervisor. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as prayed in the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the moment a person completes 14 years of service, he/she is entitled to get an automatic promotion, but, on mere completion of 14 years of service, a person will not be given any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ promotion, for the simple reason that Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, 1947 entered into between the employees/union and the respondent/Board came to be entered only on 24.12.2003. Admittedly, even before the date of entering into settlement, the petitioner suffered disciplinary proceedings. Finally, the proceedings culminated by way of imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year on 22.08.2003. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered punishment of stoppage of increment for one year by order dated 22.08.203 and the same came to an end only on 12.07.2004. Immediately after the completion of stoppage of increment for one year, it appears that the petitioner has once again given room for disciplinary proceedings and the respondent also imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months by order dated 05.05.2006. It is pertinent to note that the second punishment also came to an end on 01.12.2006 and therefore, the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and he has been promoted on 19.12.2007 to the post of Inspector of Assessment and again learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner name has been included in the panel for promotion to the post of Revenue Supervisor. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not carry any merit. It is needless to mention that since there is no charge or proceedings pending against the petitioner as of 2007, it is for the respondent Board to consider the case of petitioner for further promotion for the year 2007. 7. In result, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. rkm To Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chief Engineer (Personnel), 8th Floor, 800, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002. + 1 CC TO Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate SR 28278 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate SR 27912 W.P.No.34713/2004 NM (CO) RH (2.6.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/