WA/2473/2023 of THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs S.HENRY CHRISTY RAJ on 24 August 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal.

2. The respondent in the Writ Appeal filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No.39718 of 2016 seeking to quash the G.O.(3D) No.22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPI) Department, dated 28.10.2015 and the Letter No.9038/TPI/2016-1 dated 04.07.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent, insofar as it treats the petitioner as a fresh candidate. Consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the seniority as per paragraph 6 of G.O.(Ms) No.118, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPI) Department, dated 21.08.2007; to include the petitioner’s name in the State Level Seniority List of Executive Officer Grade-II/Head Clerk/Assistant in the panel year of 2008-2009 below Thiru.J.Mohammed Ibrahim (Serial No.145) and above Tmt.R.Umarani Serial No.146; to further include the petitioner’s name in the seniority list of Executive Officer Grade-I in the panel year of 2011-12, below Thiru J.Mohammed Ibrahim (Serial No.177) and above Tmt. R.Umarani (Serial No.178); and to promote the petitioner as Executive Officer Grade-OO/Head Clerk/Assistant with effect from 24.01.2007 and as Executive Officer Grade-I with effect from 17.12.2013 with all monetary and other attendant benefits.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was originally inducted in the

Town Panchayat on 31.08.1988 and was promoted as Junior Assistant on 24.04.2000 after obtaining concurrence from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). With effect from 14.06.2004, 49 Town Panchayats were re-designated as III Grade Municipality under the Commissioner of Municipal Administration. In the year 2009, options were called for from the employees of the III Grade Municipality to continue the services of its employees under the Municipality itself and the petitioner had also exercised its option. It is the further case of the petitioner that his lien in the department of Town Panchayat could not be severed, as municipal service was non provincialised, whereas the department of Town Panchayat was provincialised. Through a representation dated 19.06.2014, the petitioner requested to go back to the parent department namely, the Town Panchayat. Through the G.O.(3D) No.22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPI) Department, dated 28.10.2015, the petitioner was reverted to the parent department as a fresh candidate. When he had sort for restoration of his seniority, the impugned letter dated 04.07.2016 came to be passed.

4. The appellants who are all the respondents in the Writ Petition contended that the petitioner’s lien in the Town Panchayat had already been severed and as per the G.O.(3D) No.22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TPI) Department, dated 28.10.2015, the petitioner was reverted to the parent department as a fresh candidate and as such, he is not entitled to claim any benefits of seniority.

5. The Writ Court, after examining the facts of the case, by its order dated 08.03.2023, concluded as follows:

4. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. Thus, when the services of the petitioner in the parent department was not terminated by a specific order and was also not substantively absorbed in the Municipal department, his lien with the parent department is deemed to have continued and therefore, when reverting back the petitioner to his parent department, namely, Town Panchayat, his seniority requires to be protected. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge in Annie Sheela Rani's case (supra) came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order passed in W.A.No.388 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017, which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court later.

5. It would be relevant to point out here that all the provincialised employees, who were reverted back to the Department of Town Panchayat was restored with their seniorities and the seniority of the petitioner alone was denied, by taking him back as a fresh candidate. In this background also, the impugned orders, treating the petitioner as a fresh candidate in his parent department, is discriminatory and therefore illegal.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was absorbed as a fresh candidate through the impugned orders, he was denied the rightful promotions to the post of Executive Officer Grade II in the panel year 2008-2009, as well as for the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in the panel year 2011-12, whereby his juniors were awarded with such promotions.

7. In the light of the above observations, the petitioner would be entitled for restoration of his seniority in the Department of Town Panchayat and thereby will be entitled for notional promotions on par with his juniors.

8. In the light of the above findings, the impugned orders of the first respondent dated 28.10.2015 and 04.07.2016, are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to pass appropriate orders, granting notional promotion to the petitioner for the post of Executive Officer Grade-II for the panel year of 2008-09 and Executive Officer Grade-I for the panel year of 2011- 12, by inclusion of his name in the State Level Seniority List, on par with his immediate juniors, who were granted such promotions, together with all the monetary and other attendant benefits. Such orders shall be passed, atleast within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. We heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellants.

7. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

8. The G.O.(Ms.) No.182 dated 16.10.2009 is related to Work Structure - Administration of Third Grade Municipalities – Provincialised employees working in Third Grade Municipalities–Amendment to G.O.(Ms) No.118,

Municipal Administration and Water Supply department, dated 21.08.2007. In in paragraph 7 of the said G.O., it has been clearly stated that: “7. The Director of Town Panchayats is hereby instructed to take immediate action to cancel the lien of the Provincialized Employees who wish to work in third grade Municipalities in the Town Panchayats Departments, after taking action as seen in paragraph 6 above”.

9. The writ petitioner consented to the cancellation of his lien in the parent department and submitted a formal letter of consent to that effect. On the basis of the aforementioned clauses, the Government issued an order via G.O. (3P) No.22, dated 28.10.2015 stating that: “5. ..... Accordingly, Mr.S.Henry Christiraj, who is working in the post of Junior Assistant, a non- provincialised post of Government non-provincialised in Sembakkam Municipality, has expressed his willingness to work in the post of Junior Government Provincialised Assistant who falls under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Further, in clause (ii) of paragraph 5 of the said G.O. it has been clearly stated that: “Since the post of Junior Assistant is being maintained at the District level in the Town Panchayat, at present, the seniority of the post is maintained on the basis of the date on which the applicant assumes charge of the post and the district”.

10. From the aforesaid G.O., it is very clear that the petitioner’s lien in the parent department stood cancelled once he opted for the Department of Municipal Administration. Subsequently, when petitioner opted to return to his parent department, namely Town Panchayat Department, he was relieved from the Municipal Administration Department vide Na.Ka.No.599/2015 dated 28.12.2015. Thereafter, vide proceedings No.8034/2015/A2 dated 14.01.2016, an order was issued appointing the petitioner Mr.S.Henry Christiraj, former Junior Assistant, Sembakkam Municipality as Junior Assistant in Sriperumpudur Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram Zone subject to certain conditions. One such condition explicitly states “Since the post of Junior Assistant is being maintained at the District level in the Town Panchayat, at present, the seniority of the post is maintained on the basis of the date on which the applicant assumes charge of the post on the district”.

11. From the above said proceeding, it is very clear that the writ petitioner cannot claim his old seniority in the parent department as his lien there had already been cancelled. These crucial aspects were not properly appreciated by the Writ Court, which erroneously proceeded on the premise that no cancellation of lien had taken place.

12. For the reasons stated above, we are interfering with the order of the Writ Court.

13. Accordingly, the order of the Writ Court is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Judgment made in WA No. 2473 of 2023 02-09-2026