IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27.8.2008 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.NOs.36723 of 2006 and 18695 OF 2008, M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.36723 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.18695 of 2008 Tmt.D.Parameswari ..Petitioner in W.P.No.36723 of 2006 &W.P.No.18695 of 2008 vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries Department Secretariat Chennai 9 2.Commissioner of Sugars Nandanam Chennai 35 ..Respondents in W.P.No.36723 of 2006 &W.P.No.18695 of 2008 Writ Petition No.36723 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3998/Pa.a.1/2006 dated 15.9.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits including the grievances of the petitioner for non-promotion as Assistant from 19.1.1989. Writ Petition No.18695 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the appeal dated 30.5.1990 preferred by the petitioner. for petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraju senior counsel for Mr.Mani for respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Government Advocate (for R1 and R2) ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition No.36723 of 2006 is directed against the impugned order of the second respondent dated 15.9.2006 under which the appeals made by the petitioner dated 8.2.2006, 13.3.2006 and 22.3.2006 have been rejected on the ground that the said appeals have been made belatedly. The impugned order of rejection relates to the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner it is her case that even in respect of the post of Assistant, when she had a grievance she has made an appeal to the Government on 30.5.1990. In the said representation the petitioner has stated that she was not given due promotion in the post of Assistant. It is also her grievance that in the seniority list of Junior Assistant-cum-Steno typist the petitioner was placed in Serial Number.2, while Janakiraman was placed in Serial Number 5. Further, the said Janakiraman in the cadre of Junior Assistant has been promoted above the petitioner on 19.1.1989. It was under these circumstances, the petitioner has made the appeal to the Government on 30.5.1990. The case of the petitioner is that unless the appeal given by the petitioner to the Government against her supersession in the post of Assistant in 1990 is decided, the impugned order which relates to the claim of the petitioner for the next post of Superintendent cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay. 3. It was under these circumstances, the learned Government Advocate was directed to produce the files to show as to whether such appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner dated 30.5.1990 was in fact filed. From the register produced by the learned Government Advocate today it is clear that the petitioner has in fact filed such an appeal on 30.5.1990. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the said appeal has been disposed of in 1993. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that such an order has never been served to the petitioner. The register which has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondents today shows that the first respondent has disposed of the said appeal in 1993 and forwarded a copy of the same to the writ petitioner. In the counter affidavit the second respondent has stated that he is awaiting orders from the first respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 30.5.1990. Therefore, there is contradiction in the stand taken by the first and second respondents in respect of disposal of the appeal dated 30.5.1990. Be that as it may, as represented by the senior counsel for the petitioner unless until the grievance of the petitioner in the post of Assistant which she claims that her name has been superceded is decided, the present impugned order cannot be taken to the detriment of the petitioner. 4. In view of the same, the W.P.No.36723/2006 is disposed of with the direction to the first respondent to consider the said appeal dated 30.5.1990 admittedly made by the petitioner to the first respondent at the earliest point of time and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously, in any event within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. It is also seen that in the typed set of papers the representation of the petitioner dated 30.5.2006 has been filed which shall be taken into consideration by the first respondent while disposing of the appeal as stated above. Till the final order is passed by the Government in the representation as stated above, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 15.9.2006 shall be kept in abeyance. 6. It is open to the petitioner to forward one more copy of the representation dated 30.5.1990 to the first respondent along with other documents which the petitioner is relying which shall also be taken into consideration while passing final orders as stated above. 7. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected pending miscellaneous petitions are also disposed of. sal To 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries Department Secretariat Chennai 9 2.Commissioner of Sugars Nandanam Chennai 35