Petitioner's Death Abates Seniority Case; Madras HC Full Bench Leaves Censure-Promotion Rule Unresolved

The petitioner sought to quash a Government letter concerning his claim for inclusion in the approved list of Assistant Directors of Agriculture for 2007–2008, on par with his junior, and for revised pension proposals to be sent to the Accountant General

A Single Judge referred the matter to a Full Bench because of conflicting Division Bench decisions on the effect of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 24 February 2014 on the rule concerning the check period for a punishment of censure

At the Full Bench hearing, counsel reported that the petitioner had died unmarried on 19 November 2024, and no application had been filed to bring his legal representatives on record

The Court identified G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 24 February 2014, amending the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules with effect from 18 October 1993, as providing for a check period in relation to the punishment of censure

It contrasted that position with the Full Bench ruling in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur v. Rani, 2011 (3) CTC 129, which held that a check period did not apply to censure and that an employee could seek notional promotion even if the promotion fell during that period

The Court also noted conflicting Division Bench decisions on the issue; it did not determine which rule governed

The Full Bench had been constituted to resolve the conflicting Division Bench decisions on the effect of G.O.Ms.No.22 and the earlier Full Bench ruling

However, because the petitioner had died and no legal representatives had sought substitution, the Court dismissed the writ petition as abated. It therefore left the referred question of law open for determination in an appropriate case, rather than deciding the competing interpretations

The Court expressly left the question concerning G.O.Ms.No.22, the censure check period, and the Rani ruling open for consideration in an appropriate case. No costs were ordered