No Parity In Promotion Can Be Claimed Across Bifurcated Divisions Maintaining Separate Seniority Lists : Madras HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Watcher in 1981 in the undivided Madurai Forest Division, alongside one batch mate. After the bifurcation of the Division into four zones, the petitioner was placed in Kodaikanal Division, while his batch mate was in Theni Division. The batch mate was promoted to Forest Guard in 1987 in Theni Division, but the petitioner was denied similar promotion, despite being equally placed at entry-level. He relied on a 1986 circular which mandated a unified seniority list across the bifurcated divisions.

However, the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings in 1999. The punishment of pay reduction was awarded for five years with cumulative effect. It was followed by a reversion to a lower post. The petitioner challenged these actions before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal but it was rejected. Subsequently he filed petitions before the High Court, which were also dismissed in 2009. He rejoined service as a Forest Watcher in 2010. He served there without further claim until his retirement on 30.04.2014. He made a representation in May 2015 seeking retrospective promotions and service benefits. It was rejected by the Wildlife Warden in December 2015.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 2016, seeking quashing of the rejection order and a direction to grant all consequential service benefits on par with his batchmate.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner and his batch mate were appointed on the same day in 1981 as Forest Watchers. Further they were similarly placed in terms of qualifications and seniority. However, only his batch mate was promoted to Forest Guard in 1987. The petitioner relied upon a departmental circular issued in 1986, which stated that there should be a unified seniority list across all the newly bifurcated divisions. It was contended that the respondents treated each division separately for the purpose of seniority and promotions. The petitioner contended that the delay in seeking relief should not defeat his legitimate claim arising from administrative unfairness.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner's claim was belated as it was raised after his retirement. It was contended that a fresh cause of action does not arise by mere submission of a late representation. It was further submitted that after the bifurcation of the Madurai Forest Division, separate zonal seniority lists were maintained. Further the promotions were made strictly within each zone based on availability of posts and merit. The petitioner and his batch mate were from different divisions i.e. Kodaikanal and Theni respectively. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It was also submitted that the petitioner had suffered punishment for misconduct in 1999, which resulted in a reduction of pay and reversion.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner had raised his claim for promotion and service benefits only after his retirement in 2014. However, the grievance regarding non-promotion arose in 1987. It was held that such belated representation made in 2015, cannot be accepted as a valid cause of action. The case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that stale claims cannot be revived merely on the basis of a delayed representation. It was further noted by the Court that the petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in 1999, which resulted in punishment of reduction in pay and reversion to a lower post. Further petitioner's challenge to the punishment was dismissed by the High Court in 2009. After rejoining duty in 2010, the petitioner did not make any claim regarding seniority or promotion during the remaining four years of his service. Therefore, it was held that a belated representation cannot revive a dead cause of action, and that Court should not lend assistance in such cases.

It was further held by the Court that the petitioner and his batch mate were part of different administrative divisions after the bifurcation of the Madurai Forest Division. It was held that after separate zones were created, each division maintained its own seniority list and promotion panel. Therefore, claim of parity across divisions could not be sustained. Further the petitioner's reliance on the 1986 circular regarding unified seniority was held to be misplaced. Hence, no merit in the petition was found.

With the aforesaid findings and observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : P. Sakkarai vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

Case No. : W.P. (MD) No.18117 of 2016

Counsel for the Petitioner : Pradebha Krishnan for M. Ravi

Counsel for the Respondents : J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader