@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has entered into service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a Typist, which is a provisional Ministerial Cadre, on 14.10.1958. Out of the three wings of the Ministerial Service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, namely the Systems Circle Wing, Headquarters Wing and Accounts Wing, it is seen that the Systems Circle Wing and the Accounts Wing came to be merged as Administrative Wing System in the year 1969 by leaving Headquarters Wing to continue to be in effect. It appears that the persons, who continued in the Headquarters Wing had an enormous opportunity of further promotion while such promotional avenue for the persons who have been posted in the Administrative Wing was minimum.
2. It was in those circumstances, as a matter of policy, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has evolved a scheme so as to give an opportunity to the employees working in the Administrative Wing to exercise their option to go back to the Headquarters wing. Accordingly, as per the Scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as it is seen in the memorandum issued by the Secretary to the Department dated 12.8.1994, the Administrative Officers in the present Circle, who originally belonged to Headquarters Administration by virtue of their permanent absorption after merger were permitted to give option if they so desire to come back to the Headquarters cadre with their original lien by giving a cut off date by 15.9.1994 stating that if, by the said cut off date, option is not exercised, it is deemed that they opted to remain in the Administration Cadre itself. The relevant portion of the said Scheme is usefully extracted as follows:
2. In pursuance of the above decision, it is hereby ordered that the Administration Officers in the present circle Administration Cadre, who originally belonged to the headquarters Administration cadre but remaining in the circle Administration Cadre because of their permanent absorption without option, be permitted to give an option if they so desire to come back to the headquarters cadre with their original lien. They should exercise their option before 15.9.1994. If no option is received within the time limit, it will be deemed that they opted to remain in the circle administration cadre itself. The option once exercised shall be final.
3. It is on the basis of the said Scheme, the Petitioner has exercised his option to induct himself to be back to the Headquarters Administration, which was his original post when he was appointed in the year 1958. It is also seen that in the mean time since the Petitioner has acquired the accounts qualification, he was posted as Junior Assistant in the year 1960. Subsequently he was made as Assistant in the year 1961 and made as Assistant Administrative Officer on 30.3.1984. After the Petitioner has exercised his option, the seniority list was prepared as it is seen in the Board Proceeding''s No. 19 dated 26.5.1995 in which the Petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 5, while his date of option exercised by him as per the Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board happened to be 23.8.1994 and him also retired on 30.4.1995 in the cadre of Administrative Officer.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that on exercising his option to go back to the Headquarters Wing namely on 23.8.1994, his right of promotion from the original date of his appointment in the year 1958 as Typist in the Headquarters Wing has to be retained and he should have been given further promotions. He has also pointed out the similarly situated person by giving an illustration of one Mr. S. Karunanithi, who was appointed only in the year 1959 of course as a Junior Assistant due to the reason that he was having accounts qualification at that time. The said Mr. Karunanithi having been appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1959, while the Petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 14.10.1958 and in the circumstances that both the Junior Assistant and Typist are of the same cadre, while the Typist is in Headquarters Wing whereas the Junior Assistant is in the Administrative Wing. Subsequently, the said Mr. Karunanidhi came to be promoted as Assistant in the year 1963, while the Petitioner''s promotion was in the year 1961. Again the said Karunanidhi was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer on 29.5.1985 while the Petitioner''s promotion was on 30.3.1984 itself. In spite of that, after exercising the option on 23.8.1994, the above said Karunanidhi and others, who are actually juniors in all cadres, have been fixed in the seniority list above the Petitioner. It is in those circumstances, the Petitioner has made various representations and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.
5. The claim of the Petitioner is to refax the pay on all three cadres, namely as Junior Assistant, as Assistant and as an Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of the above said comparison. The impugned order has simply rejected the claim on all counts on the basis that had the Petitioner continued in the Headquarters Wing, in normal course, he would have got promotion to the post of Assistant only on 1.11.1969. Similar reason has been given for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner in other categories as Assistant Administrative Officer also. From the reference to the seniority list in the Establishment Wing maintained by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, it is clear that at least in respect of one candidate, namely Mr. S. Karunanidhi, he was appointed on 1.6.1959, while the Petitioner was appointed originally on 14.10.1958 as a Typist. Likewise, while the said Karunanidhi was subsequently promoted in the next category on 1.4.1963, the Petitioner''s promotion was in the year 1961 itself. In spite of the Petitioner''s seniority, it is not known as to how the Petitioner has been placed below the said candidates and that anomaly has not been rectified and it came to be perpetuated after the option was exercised by the Petitioner as per the Scheme formulated by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
6. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the very purpose of framing a scheme for such staff, which were thrown to administrative wing by virtue of merger by enabling them to give option so as to avoid stagnation has been refused to the Petitioner. I am of the considered view that the Respondents are bound to rectify the said anomaly insofar as the Petitioner is concerned especially taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has served in the Department for 36 years.
7. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside with a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the entire issue afresh and pass appropriate orders granting the benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled by virtue of the option exercised by him as per the scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 12.8.1994 and the said benefits shall be given retrospectively from the date of his original appointment and such order shall be passed by the Respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orders and the benefits, which may be arrived by reconsideration shall be paid to the Petitioner expeditiously. The Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
