Settled Promotions Cannot Be Unsettled After Decades When Government Relaxation Was Based on Existing Service Rules and Prior Judicial Orders

Held: The Supreme Court held that promotions granted pursuant to existing service rules, Government policy, prior judicial directions and long-standing administrative implementation should not be unsettled after decades, particularly when the concerned employee has continued in service, earned subsequent promotions, and no illegality has been established. The Court held that G.O. (D) No. 19 dated 18 January 2005, granting notional promotion to T. Gnanavel as Assistant Engineer with effect from 14 April 1997, was valid because it was based on G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 26 September 1996, which governed merger of the Engineering and Town Planning Departments and fixed inter se placement. The Court further held that fence-sitters cannot enter service disputes at a belated stage to claim seniority or consequential promotion after rights have crystallised.

Summary: The dispute arose from promotion and seniority claims within the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation after the Engineering Department and Town Planning Department were merged under G.O. Ms. No. 237 dated 26 September 1996. T. Gnanavel, initially appointed as Fitter in 1988 and later promoted as Overseer, acquired a B.E. degree and sought placement as Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer in terms of the merger policy. Pursuant to earlier orders of the High Court and consideration by the Government, G.O. (D) No. 19 dated 18 January 2005 granted him notional promotion as Assistant Engineer from 14 April 1997, with monetary benefits from 26 October 1998, and placed him above Town Planning Inspectors redesignated as Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers. R. Sasipriya challenged this Government Order, but the Single Judge dismissed her writ petition. The Division Bench later allowed her appeal and set aside the Government Order, also directing scrutiny of files relating to relaxation of service rules. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench overlooked material facts, including the merger policy, the appellant’s departmental status, prior judicial directions, subsequent promotions of both parties, retirement of R. Sasipriya, and earlier scrutiny by a Government Committee which found no illegality in the relaxations and promotions.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 23 July 2024 in Writ Appeal No. 996 of 2015 and order dated 4 October 2024 in Review Application No. 249 of 2024, and restored G.O. (D) No. 19 dated 18 January 2005. The Court held that the subsequent promotions granted to T. Gnanavel to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer were valid and that he would also be entitled to further promotion from the date on which he became eligible. The impleading applications filed by K. Saravanakumar and S. Velumayil were disposed of without granting relief, with the Court holding that belated fence-sitters cannot be permitted to disturb settled seniority and promotion positions. No order as to costs was passed, and all pending applications were disposed of.