IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 20.08.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.JYOTHIMANI WRIT PETITION No. 7705 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 P. MANIVANNAN [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPT. FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9. 2 THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT CHEPAUK,CHENNAI 5. [ RESPONDENTS ] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant retrospective promotions to the petitioner to the posts of Deputy Inspector of Survey Inspector of Survey Assistant Director of Survey and Deputy Director of Survey on par with his junior one Mr.D.Pandurangan and consequently revise his pay with retrospective effect in the respective promotional categories and revise the pension and pensionary benefits and pay the arrears of salary and arrears of pensionary benefits with interest as per the Government rules. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan, GA ORDER This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to grant retrospective promotions to the petitioner to the posts of Deputy Inspector of Survey, Inspector of Survey, Assistant Director of Survey and Deputy Director of Survey on par with his junior one Mr.D.Pandurangan and to consequently revise his pay with retrospective effect based on the promotional categories. 2. The petitioner has joined as Inspector of Survey and land records and retired from service on 30.11.2003. There appears to be some dispute between the Field Surveyors and Sub Inspectors of Survey and ultimately the Tribunal has passed an order revising the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seniority. It was based on the Tribunal's order, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.527, Revenue Department, dated 12.08.2006, by which the promotion given to the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Survey was given retrospectively on par with his junior. It is also as per the said G.O., the petitioner was also conferred with monetary benefits on notional basis on par with his junior from 04.12.1971. It is stated that after the retirement, the petitioner has made a representation claiming on the basis of retrospective promotion given to him under G.O.Ms.No.527, Revenue Department, dated 12.08.2006, further benefits in the promotional post and it is with that idea, the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer as stated above. 3. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.527, Revenue Department, dated 12.08.2006 was taken as one time measure for the purpose of revision of seniority among Sub Inspectors of Survey in their dispute with the Field Surveyors and that cannot be expected to be applied for the promotional benefits also. Further, by fixing the notional benefits, it is by way of creation of supernumerary posts the benefit has been given as one time measure and therefore, it is the case of the respondents as stated in the counter affidavit that such benefit was given as one time measure in the lower category cannot be as a matter of right claimed in the promotional post. On a reference to the G.O.Ms.No.527, Revenue Department, dated 12.08.2006, it is clear that the Government, after considering the order of the Tribunal and also taking note of the dispute that has been in existence between the persons in the cadre of Sub Inspectors of Survey and the Field Surveyors as a one time measure has conferred the monetary benefits by notional promotion and also by conferring the monetary benefits by notionally arriving at an amount by creating supernumerary post. Law is well settled that in the lower category as one time measure supernumerary posts were created and monetary benefits were granted, that cannot be a ground for any person to claim as a matter of right for the next promotional category. Moreover, the G.O. has been passed only as a policy decision in order to confer certain monetary benefits, based on the decision of the Tribunal and that cannot be as a matter of right to claim for the next promotional posts. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. rg Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPT. FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9. 2 THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT CHEPAUK,CHENNAI 5. 1 cc To Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, SR.62117 WRIT PETITION No. 7705 of 2009 rb(co) pmk.30.8.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/