A promotion under a continuing scheme cannot be cancelled again on the same eligibility ground.

The petitioner, appointed as a Helper in 1999, was suspended in 2000 over an alleged false educational certificate and reinstated in 2004.

In June 2012, TANGEDCO upgraded him to Supernumerary Fitter Grade II, but cancelled the upgradation in December 2012, stating that he had not moved to Selection Grade before the relevant Board Proceedings of 11 May 2012.

In January 2017, the respondent again granted him the upgradation; that order was cancelled in March 2017 on the same ground.

Following rejection of his representation, the petitioner sought to quash both cancellations and obtain the upgradation from 27 June 2012 with consequential benefits.

The respondents maintained that, after deducting 1,519 days of extraordinary leave without pay, he became eligible for Selection Grade only on 28 June 2012.

Whether the 2017 cancellation of the petitioner’s grant of Supernumerary Fitter Grade II was sustainable when it relied on the ground that he had not moved to Selection Grade before the Board Proceedings of 11 May 2012.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the 2012 cancellation and claim the upgradation from 27 June 2012, notwithstanding his delay and the period of suspension.

The Court considered Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, under which the Board Proceedings provided for upgrading eligible Selection Grade Field Assistants who remained without promotion to Supernumerary Fitter Grade II.

It construed the Board Proceedings (Per) FB TANGEDCO Proc. No. 28 dated 11 May 2012 as continuing in force, rather than as a one-time measure, because they contained no express limitation to employees who had attained Selection Grade before their issuance.

The Court also applied the principles that a delayed challenge may be declined and that a period of suspension treated as leave cannot be counted towards the required service period.

The Court found that the 2012 Board Proceedings did not restrict the benefit to employees who had moved to Selection Grade before 11 May 2012.

Their continued application was also evidenced by the respondent’s own 2017 order granting the petitioner the upgradation under those Proceedings.

Accordingly, cancelling that grant on the same timing ground was unjustified and could not stand.

However, the petitioner had not challenged the 2012 cancellation when issued and waited approximately seven years; further, his suspension period could not count towards the nine years of service required for eligibility.

The Court therefore declined to grant the benefit from June 2012.

It set aside the 18 March 2017 cancellation, thereby restoring the petitioner’s grant of Supernumerary Fitter Grade II under the 18 January 2017 proceedings.

The respondents were directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 within four weeks; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.