The Assistant General Manager Vs R.Uma

The Assistant General Manager vs R.Uma

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413010

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1413010
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Kumaresh Babu
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: WP/2792/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Assistant General Manager

Respondent

R.Uma

Excerpt

.....the order dated 02.04.2025 in o.a.no.614 of 2019 of the central administrative tribunal, chennai bench, whereby, the tribunal had held that the applicant therein was entitled for all monetary benefits of promotion from 05.09.1999.2.as a matter of fact, there were two earlier proceedings. the first one was in w.p.no.31587 of 2013, which had also been filed by the present writ petitioners challenging an earlier order of the tribunal in ta no.144 of 2010. the division bench by an order dated 21.02.2014 had held that the respondent herein had completed training and was holding the post of telecom technical assistant - either in officiating capacity or on regular basis. questioning that observation on facts, the writ petitioners herein had filed the second proceedings in ra no.209 of 2014 and by order dated 13.08.2014, the review application was disposed, with a specific direction that the respondent herein shall be given promotion to the post of telecom technical assistant from 05.09.1999 with all benefits.page2 of 43.this order was passed after hearing both the review petitioners and the 1st respondent. the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the 1 st respondent can be given promotion along with other persons, who had been given promotion from 05.09.1999 was noted and a caveat was placed that, if the 1st respondent alone is given promotion prior to the said date, there would be disputes with regard to seniority. 4.but the dispute regarding seniority is a separate issue. the fact is that, the respondent was entitled for promotion from 05.09.1999 and entitled for all monetary benefits. before the tribunal in o.a.no.614 of 2019, the respondent had challenged grant of only notional promotion and not promotion with benefits. the tribunal had, in our opinion, correctly allowed the original application and directed grant of promotion with all monetary benefits. we are only reiterating the order already passed in w.p.no.31587 of 2013 and r.a.no.209 of 2014.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and WMP No.3087 of 2026
1. The Assistant General Manager (Establishment - III Section) BSNL, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Assistant General Manager BSNL, Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The General Manager
Telecom Communications, Thanjavur. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. R.Uma ..Respondent(s) This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the

order passed in O.A. No.614 of 2019 dated 02.04.2025 on the file of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and to quash the same as illegal. Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ramesh Kumar K.R For Respondent(s):

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The Writ Petition has been filed questioning the order dated 02.04.2025 in O.A.No.614 of 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby, the Tribunal had held that the applicant therein was entitled for all monetary benefits of promotion from 05.09.1999.

2.As a matter of fact, there were two earlier proceedings. The first one was in W.P.No.31587 of 2013, which had also been filed by the present writ petitioners challenging an earlier order of the Tribunal in TA No.144 of 2010. The Division Bench by an order dated 21.02.2014 had held that the respondent herein had completed training and was holding the post of Telecom Technical Assistant - either in officiating capacity or on regular basis. Questioning that observation on facts, the writ petitioners herein had filed the second proceedings in RA No.209 of 2014 and by order dated 13.08.2014, the review application was disposed, with a specific direction that the respondent herein shall be given promotion to the post of Telecom Technical Assistant from 05.09.1999 with all benefits.

Page2 of 4

3.This order was passed after hearing both the review petitioners and the 1st respondent. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the 1 st respondent can be given promotion along with other persons, who had been given promotion from 05.09.1999 was noted and a caveat was placed that, if the 1st respondent alone is given promotion prior to the said date, there would be disputes with regard to seniority. 4.But the dispute regarding seniority is a separate issue. The fact is that, the respondent was entitled for promotion from 05.09.1999 and entitled for all monetary benefits. Before the Tribunal in O.A.No.614 of 2019, the respondent had challenged grant of only notional promotion and not promotion with benefits. The Tribunal had, in our opinion, correctly allowed the original application and directed grant of promotion with all monetary benefits. We are only reiterating the order already passed in W.P.No.31587 of 2013 and R.A.No.209 of 2014 that the respondent herein is entitled for promotion from 05.09.1999 together with all monetary benefits. The petitioners are directed to comply with the directions within a period of eight weeks from today. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) smv Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Page3 of 4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

SMV Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties The Assistant General Manager vs R.Uma Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan,Honourable Mr.Justice ...