IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN W.P.No.2554 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.Union of India Rep. By Engineer-in-Chief Army Head Quarters Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, DHQ Post, New Delhi 2.The Garrison Engineer Naval Base Post Vijayarayanam Tirunelveli .. Petitioners vs 1.K.Madhavan 2.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to O.A.No.78 of 2008 and quash the order dated 3.8.2009 passed therein by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, as infructuous, illegal, invalid and devoid of merits. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Gopikrishnan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby O.A.No.78 of 2008 filed by the first respondent herein, was allowed. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The writ petition came to be filed under the following facts and circumstances: (a) The first respondent who was initially appointed as Peon in the year 1984, on completion of the SSLC, got his promotion as Meter Reader in the year 1987. In the year 2005, the Meter Reader post was merged with Store Keeper post. Thereafter, he was posted in a tenure post as per his option at Tirunelveli. He appeared for the departmental test conducted for the promotion to the post of Store Keeper Grade-I and passed. But, without any reason, the Store Keeper post was again demerged as Meter Reader and Store Keeper in the year 2006. For want of vacancy, he was continuing at Tirunelveli as Store Keeper till 31.3.2007 and relieved. He was posted as Meter Reader only in April 2007. Challenging the demerger, he filed the O.A. before the Tribunal. (b) Opportunity was given to the writ petitioners. On enquiry, the Tribunal took the view that the demerger could not be justified and hence allowed the application. Under the circumstances, this writ petition has arisen before this Court. 4.The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as done before the Tribunal, was that the merger of these two posts namely Store Keeper and Meter Reader, was subject to the approval by the Ministry of Defence; but, subsequently, it was not approved; that under the circumstances, the demerger was to be effected and accordingly done, and hence the order of demerger was to be sustained, and the order of the Tribunal has got to be set aside. 5.This Court is unable to agree with the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is not in controversy that the first respondent who was originally appointed as Peon in the year 1984, was subsequently promoted as Meter Reader in 1987. In the year 2005, that post was merged with Store Keeper, and in all respects they were treated in par with the others. The first respondent also participated in the departmental test for the promotion to the post of Store Keeper Grade-I, and he has also passed the same. In such circumstances, the order came to be passed. 6.The only contention put forth by the petitioners' side was that the merger was subject to the approval by the Defence Ministry, but it was not done, and under the circumstances, the demerger was called for. This contention cannot be accepted by this Court for more reasons than one. Originally, the posts were actually merged, and the first respondent having appeared for the departmental test and having passed the same, got promotion as Store Keeper, and he was also posted as Store Keeper in the year 2007. Only in April 2007, he was posted as Meter Reader and has been working so. Now, making a demerger at this juncture will not only be disadvantageous, but also prejudicial to the first respondent who actually participated in the test and also got through, and if again the demerger is to take place, he cannot undergo the test. That apart, he has to go to the original cadre after serving for a period of three years as Meter Reader. As rightly pointed out by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, if a demerger is to take place at this stage, it will cause considerable loss to the Government apart from incurring hardship to the employees. Under the circumstances, demerger could not be justified from any angle. Hence the contentions put forth by the petitioners' side were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. This Court is unable to notice anything to disturb the order of the Tribunal. 7.In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. nsv Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To: The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai 600 104. + 1 cc to Mr. M. Gopikrishnan, Advocate SR No.10403 GR(CO) SR/22.2.2010 WP No.2554 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/