The Division Bench Judge RMT. Teeka Raman dismissed a writ petition filed for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus. A former Assistant Accounts Officer filed the writ petition. It called for the records of the impugned order. He seeks to cancel the same. He wants the respondents to grant him a notional promotion. This promotion could help him have revised pensioner benefits.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner joined as a Junior Assistant in the Agriculture Department in 1960. This also becomes his parent department. He was later transferred to Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Department. I was for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in 1992, directed the respondents. It asked the respondents to give seniority in the feeder grade of Junior Assistant. On that account, the parent department revised the petitioner’s seniority. The petitioner, thus, wants that the respondents recognize and revised his seniority. All in consonance with the Tamil Nadu State Treasuries & Accounts Department.
Arguments before the Court
The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the petitioner should receive two promotions. The respondents neglected to revise the seniority in the parental department. That cost the petitioner his pensioner benefits.
The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Assistant Accounts Officer post is a selection category. The seniority for Assistant Accounts Officer in Tamil Nadu State T&A Service is fixed differently. It’s fixed with reference to the date of appointment in the feeder grades at their selection time. After doing so, they get into the panel as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu State T&A Department. Thus, any later revision in the regularisation date in the feeder grade post in their parent department cannot have any consequential effects. It is because the Assistant Accounts Officer panel consists of personnel from various (parent) departments.
The Court observed that the petitioner got transferred and recruited as Assistant Accounts Officer in Tamil Nadu T&A Department. By that reason, the rules specified in Tamil Nadu State Treasuries and Accounts Sub Rules (in short rules) are binding on him. For the present case, Rule 3(g) and 11 are relevant and applicable.
Rule 3(g) of Tamil Nadu T&A Service Special Rules comprises four points illustrated under:
- For any vacancies in Class IV post, the first two posts vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer. It will be for personnel from Sub Treasury Officer and Superintendents in the Treasuries and Pay and Accounts Offices. The remaining three vacancies shall be reserved for recruitment by transfer. It would be from among persons holding the post of Superintendents, Accountants or Auditors borne on the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. Additionally, their pay scale should not less than that of Superintendents in any other services.
- Provided that if in any year, the aforesaid, ratio cannot be followed for want of qualified persons. Either from Sub Treasury Officer or Superintendent in the Treasuries and Accounts Department. The said reserved vacancies shall be filled in by recruitment by transfer from the posts specified in the Table under this Rule.
- Provided further that to maintain equitable representation only one person from each department shall be chosen subject to availability.
- Provided also that no department shall have a representation thrice the combined cadre strength of the posts of: Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Chief Accounts Officer in each department.
Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu T&A Service Special Rules entails the purpose of appointment to the post in Class IV. The inter-se-seniority of the persons selected (from various departments) shall be fixed with reference to the dates of their regular appointment. This can be applicable to the post of Sub- Treasury Officer or Superintendents and from the posts in the feeder categories. The feeder grades such as Accountants, Superintendents etc., in the department except Treasuries and Accounts Department.
The Court dismissed the writ petition. It stated that seniority could not be revised for revised pensioner benefits. The combined reading of the Rules 3(g) validated respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s plea for revising his seniority.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.