Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a service dispute wherein a Panchayat Assistant, appointed in 1979 and later transferred as Junior Assistant in 1999 under a 10% quota, sought retrospective promotion and relaxation of rules under G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 30.10.1984. The employee, after retiring in 2016, had made representations in 2011 and 2015 claiming eligibility due to having passed departmental examinations multiple times. The District Collector rejected the representation in 2019, leading to a writ petition that was allowed by a single judge on 20.12.2022. The State authorities then filed a writ appeal. The appellants argued that the government order was inapplicable because the employee had crossed the age limit of 53 years prescribed under it and had retired before any order could be passed. They further contended that relaxation of rules is a discretionary power of the Government, not a matter of right, and cannot be granted retrospectively to confer promotion from a past date. The respondent contended that his eligibility under the order entitled him to the benefit. The division bench, allowing the appeal, held that the relaxation power is to be exercised only in limited circumstances to remove inequality or injustice and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Since the respondent had crossed the age limit and had already retired, the government order did not apply. The court set aside the single judge's order, holding that relaxation cannot be granted retrospectively for purposes of promotion. The writ appeal was allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Relaxation of Rules - Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1170, Personnel and Administration Department dated 30.10.1984 - The Government Order providing relaxation for employees who have appeared in departmental examinations is subject to an age limit of 53 years; an employee who retired before seeking relief cannot claim retrospective application of the order. The respondent, having retired on 30.04.2016 and having submitted a representation after crossing 53 years, could not claim relaxation as a right. Held that the single judge erred in granting the writ petition, and the appeal was allowed. (Paras 2-5)
B) Service Law - Nature of Rule Relaxation - Discretionary Power - Relaxation of rules is a concession that vests with the Government and is to be exercised judiciously to remedy injustice or inequality; it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be used to grant retrospective promotion. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to relaxation of rules under G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 30.10.1984 and retrospective promotion as Junior Assistant from 11.04.2011; whether relaxation of rules can be claimed as a right.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed; the order dated 20.12.2022 in W.P.No.9904 of 2021 is set aside. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Relaxation of rules cannot be claimed as an absolute right
- power of relaxation is discretionary
- relaxation is a concession granted in limited circumstances
- retrospective rule relaxation impermissible for retrospective promotion
- relaxation cannot be sought as a matter of right
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 147
WA No. 49 of 2024 and CMP No. 298 of 2024
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Dr. R. Gouri for appellants, Mr. S. Kumara Devan for R1, No appearance for R2
The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and The District Collector, Vellore
S.Umamaheswaran and Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Nemili, Vellore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service dispute pertaining to retrospective promotion and relaxation of service rules.
Remedy Sought
The respondent/writ petitioner sought relaxation of rules under G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 30.10.1984 and grant of retrospective promotion to the post of Junior Assistant from the date of his initial representation on 11.04.2011.
Filing Reason
The District Collector rejected the representation for relaxation on 01.04.2019, leading to the filing of W.P.No.9904 of 2021.
Previous Decisions
The single judge allowed the writ petition on 20.12.2022, directing relaxation and promotion; this appeal challenged that order.
Issues
Whether the respondent was entitled to relaxation of rules under G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 30.10.1984 and retrospective promotion as Junior Assistant from 11.04.2011.
Whether relaxation of rules can be claimed as a matter of right.
Submissions/Arguments
For the respondent: He had appeared in departmental examinations on more than five occasions and was eligible for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1170; the rejection was erroneous.
For the appellants: The government order was not applicable as the respondent had crossed the age limit of 53 years; appointment by transfer itself was a concession; relaxation of rules is a discretionary power of the Government, not a right; retrospective promotion cannot be granted through rule relaxation.
Ratio Decidendi
Relaxation of rules is a discretionary power vested in the Government and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Such relaxation cannot be granted retrospectively to confer promotion from a date prior to retirement, especially when the employee has crossed the age limit prescribed under the governing government order. The power of relaxation is to be exercised judiciously only in cases of injustice or inequality and not for routine grant of retrospective promotion.
Judgment Excerpts
Relaxation of rule cannot be claimed as an absolute right by the employees.
The power of relaxation is to be exercised judiciously and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
Employees cannot seek relaxation of rules as a matter of right.
Retrospective relaxation of Rules for grant of promotion with effect from the date of his representation i.e., 14.04.2011, which is impermissible.
The said Government Order is inapplicable to the respondent, as he crossed the age limit of 53 years.
Procedural History
The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Assistant on 01.09.1979 and then as Junior Assistant by transfer on 08.01.1999 under a 10% quota. He submitted a representation in 2011 and again in 2015 seeking relaxation under G.O.Ms.No.1170 and retrospective promotion. The District Collector rejected the representation on 01.04.2019. The respondent filed W.P.No.9904 of 2021, which was allowed by a single judge on 20.12.2022. The appellants filed the present writ appeal challenging that order.
