Madras High Court
G.Paulraju vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited on 9 March, 2022
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, Mohammed Shaffiq
Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013
G.Paulraju ... Appellant
vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Corporate Office, “LLA Building”,
735, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Manager – Personnel & Administration,
Corporate Office, “LLA Building”,
735, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Deputy General Manager,
Alangulam Cement Works,
Tamil Nadu Cements Post,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 05.04.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24551 of 2003.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013
For Appellant : M/s.A.P.Srinivas
For Respondents : Mr.A.Sivaji
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.) Present Appeal has been preferred by the Writ Petitioner, questioning the common order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24551 of 2003.
2. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner joined the services of the Respondents/TANCEM as a Tally Clerk in the year 1981 and after holding various posts, on selection, he was appointed as Superintendent (Marketing) on 19.05.1999. By an impugned order dated 19.03.2003 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Writ Petitioner was reverted after a period of four years from the promoted post, without any prior notice. It is seen that, one P.Ramu, who was working as an Assistant Manager (Marketing) was terminated from service and that, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14010 of 2003 and by an order dated 30.01.2003, he was directed to be reinstated into service and in order to accommodate him, the reversion order was passed. Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013
3. Challenging the impugned order of reversion, the Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.24551 of 2003 and the learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 05.04.2013, dismissed the Writ Petition, by holding as under:
“16. A perusal of the records would go to show that, out of 15 posts, only 12 posts are available as on date. Further, in order to accommodate one Ramu, who has obtained orders from this Court for reinstatement, the present Petitioners have been reverted. Further, it appears that, Petitioner Paulraj has retired on 31.03.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation as Superintendent (Marketing) and he was never disturbed and the Petitioner Gurunathan is going to retire during the year 2014. Therefore, prima facie, I find no malafide intention on the part of the 2nd Respondent.
17. In view of all the above, the Writ Petition deserves only to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ...”
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner contended that, as per the Service Rules of TANCEM, the 1st Respondent is not empowered to upgrade or downgrade a post and that, the reason stated by the Respondents that, promotions were given pursuant to the Settlement arrived Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is highly illogical. According to him, when no sanctioned post is available, the question of promotion or appointment on any ground, does not arise.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1988) 4 SCC 170. In the said case, the Apex Court has categorically held that, punishment by way of reduction in rank can be inflicted against a Civil Servant, who has been promoted to a higher post. Once a person is appointed in a particular post, he cannot be reverted to a lower post than in which he was appointed.
7. It is seen from the records that, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had the benefit of interim order of this Court and on account of the same, he continued to function as a Superintendent (Marketing) and thereafter promoted as Superintendent (Marketing) as regular promotion on 02.02.2007 and retired on 31.03.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation.
Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013
8. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner contended that, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has not been paid the terminal benefits.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has retired from service, the only issue that requires consideration in this Writ Appeal is, payment of terminal benefits due to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. Hence, this Court directs the Respondents herein to pay all the terminal benefits due to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment.
The Writ Appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [M.S.Q.,J.] 09.03.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No (aeb) Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013 To:
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, “LLA Building”, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2. The Manager – Personnel & Administration, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, “LLA Building”, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. The Deputy General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Alangulam Cement Works, Tamil Nadu Cements Post, Virudhunagar District.
Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Appeal No.2374 of 2013 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
(aeb) Judgment in W.A.No.2374 of 2013 09.03.2022 Page No.7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis