M.Lakshmanan vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 19-08-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 31-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 4410 of 2022
AND
WMP NO. 4543 OF 2022
M.Lakshmanan
S/o. Muthuswamy,
Formerly Special Deputy Collector, CPD and
Formerly District Revenue Officer,
51, No.5, New Street, Mayiladuthurai 609 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Services
Wing (SER1), Fort St George, Chennai 9.
2. The Chief Secretary to Government
Public (Special A) Department, Fort St George,
Chennai 9.
3. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Revenue Administration and Disaster
Management
Chepauk, Chennai 5.
4. The District Collector
Nagapattinam District.
5. The District Collector
Mayiladuthurai District.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the 1st Respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in
GO 2(D) No.03 Revenue and Disaster Management (Service 1) Dept. dated
nd
8.1.2020 and the consequential order of the 2 Respondent in
G.O.Ms.No.186 Public (Special A) Department dated 26.03.2020, quash the
same in so far as denial of back wages to the petitioner by invoking Rule 17
under Fundamental Rule 27 and further direct the respondents to draw and
disburse the salary to the post of Deputy Collector from 03.10.2002 to
13.06.2007 and for the post of District Revenue Officer from 7.3.08 to
30.6.09 along with interest at 12 percent p.a. for all the retirement benefits
and grant such other further relief as this Honorable Court may deem fit in
the circumstances arising out of the case.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkataramani,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha
AGP For R1 To R5

ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a backwages for the
period 03.10.2002 to 13.06.2007 for the post of a Deputy Collector and from
07.03.2008 to 30.06.2009 for the post of a District Revenue Officer.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Venkataramani, appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the respondents.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that though the petitioner was promoted with effect from 03.10.2002,
the monetary benefits were granted only with effect from 14.06.2007. It is the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that on account of framing of
frivolous charge under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, there was a delay in promoting the petitioner.
The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that, if the petitioner has been
promoted on due date, he would have got monetary benefits from the date on
which his junior was promoted. For the frivolous conduct of the respondent,
the petitioner should not be denied his monetary benefits. It is also his
contention that the delay in promotion was not on account of the petitioner’s
default, but only on the callous and ulterior conduct of the respondent. In
support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Union of India and others
Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and
(ii) S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
and would contend that the petitioner not only entitled to the monetary
benefits, but also with interest therefor. Hence, prayed to allow the writ
petition.
4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
Additional Government Pleader, and would contend that the petitioner was
considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy Collector for the panel
year 2000-2001. However, his name could not be proceeded on account of
pendency of charges. Similarly, he was also considered for the subsequent
panel years 2002-2003, 2003-2006. Only because of the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings, he could not be considered for previous year, but
ultimately he was considered for the panel year 2006-2007 and promoted as
Deputy Collector notionally with effect from 2002. Similarly, again at the
time of considering him for the promotion to the next level post of District
Revenue Officer, there was an another disciplinary proceedings which
resulted in postponement of his consideration, but latter on he was notionally
promoted with retrospective effect. Since the petitioner did not officiate any
higher posting, on the date he was notionally promoted, the question of
demanding monetary benefits does not arise and the same is contrary to the
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
service jurisprudence. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6.While looking into the factual position, the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner, was ultimately set aside by this Court vide
order dated 05.01.2018, and this Court directed the respondent to notionally
promote the petitioner as a Deputy Collector with effect from the date when
his junior was considered. Based on the above order, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Deputy Collector notionally, and again as a District
Revenue Officer with effect from 03.10.2002 and 07.03.2008 respectively.
7. Now, the point for consideration is, can a person have a right to get
the monetary benefits for the period during which he did not officiate higher
posting. The said position is no longer res integra. In this regard, it is
relevant to refer paragraph 21 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Government of West Bengal and others Vs.Dr.Amal Satpathi and
others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, which reads as under:-
“21. While we recognize respondent No. 1's right to be
considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold
an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents
discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on
the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of
recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated
before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to
retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post
of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.”
8.In view of the above proposition, it is amply clear that though there
was some delay on account of disciplinary proceedings, since the petitioner
did not officiate the higher posting on the date when his junior was promoted,
the question of ordering the higher pay does not arise.
9.However, the learned Senior Counsel by relying upon the
K.V.Jankiraman’s case [cited supra], on the principles of sealed cover
procedure, would contend that, the moment the employees is given a clean
chit the promotions along with all monetary benefits have to be given from
the date on which his junior was considered for promotion. Though the
learned Senior Counsel relied upon the K.V.Jankiraman ’s case [cited supra],
that is in respect of sealed cover procedure. Whereas, in the case in hand, no
such sealed cover procedures are maintained and there are no rule to that
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
effect as also to give any monetary benefits during the period when the
employee did not officiate the higher posting.
10.Further, since this Court does not find any grounds to grant
monetary benefits, the question of considering the interest, by relying
S.K.Dua ’s case [cited supra] does not arise. Therefore, this Court does not
find any merits in the present writ petition.
11.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
31-08-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Services Wing (SER1),
Fort St George, Chennai 9.
2. The Chief Secretary to Government
Public (Special A) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9.
3. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration
and Disaster Management
Chepauk, Chennai 5.
4. The District Collector
Nagapattinam District.
5. The District Collector
Mayiladuthurai District.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3562
WP No. 4410 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
WP No. 4410 of 2022
AND
WMP NO. 4543 OF 2022
31-08-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )