Facts
The respondent was appointed as Steno-typist Grade-III with effect from 24 October 1994.
Source reference: p.3, para.5The promotional avenue in that stream was to Steno-typist Grade-II and Grade-I, whereas the posts of Junior Assistant, Assistant and Superintendent belonged to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service.
Source reference: p.3, para.5Although the pay scales of Steno-typist Grade-III and Assistant were subsequently made identical, the respondent exercised an option to enter the Ministerial Service and was appointed as Assistant by transfer of service in 2008.
Source reference: p.3, paras.6–7; p.6, para.13His seniority was accordingly fixed from the date of appointment as Assistant.
Source reference: no citationHe sought a writ of mandamus directing the Department to reckon his seniority from his initial appointment as Steno-typist Grade-III in 1994 for promotion to Superintendent, relying on Rule 35(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.
Source reference: p.2, para.2; p.6, para.11The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by relying on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 1402 of 2014, leading the State to file the present intra-court appeal.
Source reference: p.2, paras.1–3Issues
Whether the respondent was entitled to have his seniority in the post of Assistant, and consequently for promotion to Superintendent, reckoned from his initial appointment as Steno-typist Grade-III on 24 October 1994?
Source reference: p.6, paras.11–12Whether Rule 35(b), rather than Rule 35(aa), of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules governed fixation of the respondent’s seniority after his transfer from the Steno-typist stream to the Ministerial Service?
Source reference: p.2, para.4; p.4, para.9; p.7, para.14Whether appointment as Assistant by transfer of service, despite the identical pay scale, entitled the respondent to carry forward his earlier service for seniority and further promotion in the Ministerial Service?
Source reference: p.7, para.15Law Applied
The Court applied Rule 35(aa) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, under which seniority in a service, class, category or grade is determined by the date of appointment to that service, class, category or grade, subject to the prescribed provisos concerning inter se seniority.
Source reference: pp.4–5, para.9The corresponding statutory provision is Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
Source reference: p.5, para.10; p.8, para.16Rule 35(b), as considered in W.A.(MD) No. 1402 of 2014, provides that transfer between categories carrying the same scale of pay is not treated as a first appointment to the latter category for purposes of seniority, with seniority determined by reference to rank in the former category.
Source reference: p.7, para.14However, the Court held that Rule 35(b) did not override the requirement under Rule 35(aa) that seniority in the new service or category be reckoned from the date of appointment to that service or category.
Source reference: p.8, para.15Reasoning
The Court distinguished the respondent’s original post from the post of Assistant.
Source reference: no citationSteno-typist Grade-III and Assistant were posts in different service streams, with distinct promotional avenues; the respondent entered the Ministerial Service only when he opted for and was appointed as Assistant by transfer of service.
Source reference: pp.3, 6, paras.5–7, 13The identical pay scale did not merge the two posts or create an entitlement to seniority from the earlier appointment date.
Source reference: p.8, para.15Although the transfer could not be characterised as a fresh appointment or promotion under Rule 35(b), seniority for further promotion within the Ministerial Service had to be determined under Rule 35(aa) from the date of appointment as Assistant.
Source reference: p.8, para.15Reckoning service from 1994 would also disturb the seniority of employees who had entered and continued in the Ministerial stream through the Junior Assistant–Assistant channel.
Source reference: p.8, para.15Accordingly, the Division Bench precedent relied upon by the respondent did not apply to the present factual setting.
Source reference: p.8, para.15Holding
The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to claim seniority from 24 October 1994, his initial date of appointment as Steno-typist Grade-III.
His seniority for promotion to Superintendent was correctly fixed from the date on which he was appointed as Assistant by transfer of service in 2008, in accordance with Rule 35(aa) and the corresponding Section 40(2) of the 2016 Act.
Source reference: p.8, para.16The writ order dated 25 April 2025 in W.P. No. 41826 of 2016 was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.
Source reference: p.9, para.17Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 20161
Original Court PDF
Government Of Tamil Nadu,vsR.Muthusami
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
