HC relief for municipal worker robbed of 20-yr-old promotion

Chennai

The petitioner, P Subburam, was appointed as the night watchman on March 12, 1990. Then, he was promoted as Junior Assistant and had completed training at Bhavanisagar in 2002. Thereafter, his service was regularised and subsequently, based on his hard work, he is presently working as an Assistant, he said in the petition.

But following a complaint given by a former office superintendent who alleged that Subburam did not undergo training, the benefits due to him were stopped and recovery proceedings were initiated. In its defence, the Municipal Administration Department contended that as night watchman is a feeder category, the person must undergo one-year training for promotion to Junior Assistant. But the petitioner got promotion, suppressing the fact that he has not undergone training.

However, Justice S Vaidyanathan observed that the contention that the petitioner suppressed the fact of not undergoing training could not be accepted, as it was the duty of the Municipal Administration to ascertain whether the person to whom promotion was given has fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

Setting aside the impugned order of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, the judge added, “Since the petitioner has been allowed to march into various posts by way of promotions, on one fine morning, he cannot be reverted to his original post for want of training, which is illegal and unwarranted.”

In the event of it coming to know of the fact that Subburam had not undergone the one-year training, the Municipal Administration Department could have denied promotion to the petitioner at the initial stage itself, the court noted, and directed the State not to deprive the petitioner any of the benefits that have already accrued to him.