IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.48028 of 2006 (O.A.No.5795/99) A.Ildephonse .. petitioner vs 1.The Government of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Tax Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28 .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.5795 of 1999 praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Letter No.1847/H.2/99-2 dated 17.03.99 and quash the same and direct the respondents to include the name of the Petitioner/ Applicant in the panel of Sub Registrars Grade-I for the year 1996-97 in the appropriate place with reference to his seniority and grant him all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj for Mr. P.Rajendran For Respondents: Mr.B.Vijay Govt.Advocate O R D E R This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Letter No.1847/H.2/99-2 dated 17.03.99 and quash the same and direct the respondents to include the name of the Applicant in the panel of Sub Registrars Grade-I for the year 1996-97 in the appropriate place with reference to his seniority and grant him all consequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner suffered a punishment of censure for the period of one year. During the currency of punishment, his name was not considered to the post of Sub Registrar Gr.I. The petitioner relied upon the letter No. 25165/S/98-1, dated 10.6.1998 which is an amendment to Part 4-II (3) of G.O.Ms.No. 368 P&AR, dated 18.10.1993. It states that the punishment of censure has no currency. The department rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the said amendment is prospective and not retrospective. 3. Heard Mr.Vijay, learned Government Advocate. He referred to the reply affidavit. The reply affidavit states that the letter dated 10.6.98 is only a clarification and does not have retrospective effect. Unfortunately, the letter dated 10.6.98 is an amendment to the above said G.O. as could be seen from the proceedings itself. It has been wrongly stated as clarification by the respondent, who has filed the reply affidavit. 4. Since the petitioner claims inclusion of his name in the panel of 1996-97, during which period, the punishment was in force, he is not entitled to any relief in terms of clause 4 of G.O.368, dated 18.10.1993. The relief sought for is therefore rejected. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ra To 1.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamilnadu Commercial Tax Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 10108 W.P.No. 48028 of 2006 BK (CO) kk 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/