The Madras High Court upholds employee benefit preference in service jurisprudence when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments.
The Madras High Court upholds employee benefit preference in service jurisprudence when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments.
Case Title: G. Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Case No: W.P.No.6294 of 2021
Decided on: 17th October, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA
Introduction
The Madras High Court while hearing a plea by G. Selvamoorthy seeking an enhancement in his retirement benefits observed that in service jurisprudence, when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments, preference should be given to the interpretation that benefits the employee.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner who retired from Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) was requesting the department to consider his representation for notional promotion to Junior Engineer/Electrical Grade II, aligning with his immediate junior in the selection list, in order to secure enhanced terminal benefits. The petitioner previously on October 21, 2019 was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year with cumulative effect.
As the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Schedule XI(1), the department didn’t consider his name in promotional panel due to previous promotion imposed on him, arguing that once punishment was imposed, an individual would be ineligible for inclusion in the promotion panel for the subsequent five consecutive years.
Courts analysis and decision
The court noted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner would expire as of October 21, 2020 and as of the date of promotion panel that is February 26, 2021, there was no currency of punishment. The court further noted that specifying a check-period of five years in the Rules merely indicated that an individual should not be deprived of promotion for a period exceeding five years and the same provision should not be misconstrued to suggest a complete prohibition on promotions for an individual who has faced disciplinary measures throughout the entire check period, particularly when the disciplinary consequences are no longer in effect at the relevant point in time.
The court additionally noted that as per the Tamil Nadu Board Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, one of the punishments is withholding the increment of the promotion. In the present case, when increment was withheld, petitioner can’t be denied of promotion at the same time resulting in double punishments.
The court while considering the wider implications and objectives outlined in the Rules as well as the nature and severity of Selvamoorthy’s lapse, the court was of the opinion that his plea for notional promotion could be evaluated with the aim of augmenting retirement benefits. Consequently, the court issued a directive for the authorities to review and entertain his request for the enhancement of retirement benefits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
Click here to view your judgement