W.P. No. 14053 of 2008. Case: N. Savithri Vs The Regional Director, The Director General Employees' State Insurance Corporation and The Central Administrative Tribunal rep. by its Registrar. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 14053 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R. Singaravelan, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel for S. Jothivani, Adv. |
| Judges | N. Paul Vasanthakumar and K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | October 03, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
1. The prayer in this writ petition is challenging the orders of the first respondent dated 25.2.2005 and the third respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 534 of 2005 dated 18.4.2006 and consequently seeking for directions to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Personal Assistant with effect from the date of promotion given to her junior i.e. 19.1.2001 with all monetary and service benefits. The case of the petitioner is as follows:--
She was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk, on compassionate grounds, with effect from 15.5.1986, when there were 11 clear regular vacancies to that post. The petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy only. Therefore, her service should have been regularised with effect from 15.5.1986 in the post of LDC. However, it was not regularised. A departmental examination was conducted for filling up the vacancies to the post of Stenographer under 25% quota in the year 1992. The petitioner applied for taking the said examination. A clarification was sought for by the Regional office from the Head office regarding the petitioner's eligibility to appear for the said examination on the reason that she was not regularised in the post of LDC in the year 1992 and that the condition for taking part in the examination was three years regular service in the post of LDC. The Head office granted permission to the petitioner to appear for the examination and accordingly she appeared and however failed in the examination conducted in the year 1992. Again, she applied for taking part in the examination conducted in the year 1993. The Regional office on the basis of the earlier permission granted by the Head office, had permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination in the year 1993. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and passed the examination and she was promoted to the post of Stenographer on merits on 6.1.1994. However, her service in the post of LDC was regularised only with effect from 14.8.1996 after a lapse of 10 years from the date of her original appointment on compassionate grounds and in the post of Stenographer with effect from 16.8.1999, after a lapse of nearly 4 years from the date of her promotion on merits.
2. The petitioner made several representations seeking for promotion from the date on which her juniors were promoted to the post of Personal Assistants by regularising her service from the date of her original appointment. The second respondent through his letters dated 28.3.2002 and 25.7.2003 informed the first respondent that the petitioner's contention with regard to her appointment in the post of Lower Division Clerk being regular that her promotion to the post of Stenographer also being regular. However, without considering the same, the first respondent through the impugned order dated 25.2.2005 directed the petitioner's regularisation in the cadre of Stenographer only with effect from 15.8.1999. Challenging the said order of the first respondent the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 534 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent Tribunal. By an order dated 18.4.2006, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking regularisation from the date of her original appointment. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 25.2.2005 confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated 18.4.2006 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the counter affidavit and contended as follows:--
The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 15.5.1986 in the respondent Corporation on compassionate grounds. Her appointment was purely on temporary basis. The offer of appointment was in relaxation of the prescribed procedure contained in the Recruitment Regulation for the post of Lower Division Clerk. The contention of the petitioner that there were regular vacancies of Lower Division Clerk is not correct and regular appointment could not be made as 35 officials who were already appointed on ad hoc and purely temporary basis to the post of Lower Division Clerk on various dates prior to the petitioner's appointment have got priority over the petitioner for regularisation and therefore the petitioner's appointment on regular basis could be considered only after regularisation of all those officials. Immediately after her appointment, due to review of staff position in respect of Lower Division Clerk in all the Regions, sanctioned strength of Tamil Nadu Region was reduced to 175 posts. Thus some officials who were already holding the post of Lower Division Clerk on regular basis were rendered surplus. The officials so rendered surplus were required to be adjusted against future...
To continue reading
Request your trial