G. Chandrasekaran v. The Director General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:06.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI W.P.No.11089 of 2011 G.Chandrasekaran ..
Petitioner Vs The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 .. Respondent Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner dated 19.03.2011 for promotion as SubInspector of Police (Railways) from the year 1994 and also the consequential relief within a reasonable time. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondent :
Mr.K.Ravikumar, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation. As it appears, the petitioner entered into service in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Grade I Police Constable on 30.06.1975 and subsequently, having been promoted to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police on 03.08.2002 and while in that grade, he superannuated from his service on 30.06.2009.
2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was enlisted as Grade I Police Constable on 30.06.1975 and upgraded as Head Constable as during the year 1984 and further upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2002, having completed 18 years of service in the rank of Head Constable and also the Government issued GO Ms.No.13 Home (Police V) Dept. dated 06.01.2010 have decided for upgradation of 2589 Grade II Police Constable who were appointed on 01.11.1984 to be advanced to 25.07.1995 instead of 22.07.1997 and also Grade I police Constable as Head Constable be advanced to 25.07.2000 instead of 22.07.2002 and also the subsequent GO (Ms).No.15 Home (Police V) Dept. dated 07.01.
2010 based on the representation of Police Commission issued an order that those who completed 25 years of service as Constables out of which 10 years of service have been completed as Head Constables and those who are not able to get regular promotion as Sub Inspector of Police may be given upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police from First of the succeeding month of completion of service by the respective Deputy Inspector General of Police / Commissioner of police, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioner.
3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as such submitted a representation on 12.08.2010 to the respondent and also made further representation dated 19.03.2011 which are still pending with the office of the Director General of Police, Chennai and the petitioner is yet to be favoured with any kind of response. Hence, he has filed this writ petition with the prayer as stated earlier.
4.
Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that such inaction is impermissible and as such, the authority should be directed to take decision within a stipulated period of time on the representation. 6.
The learned counsel appearing for the state has no objection for the same.
7.
Considering such submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and also going through the materials placed, this Court directs the respondent to take informed and considered decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2011 ventilating his grievance, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if the same is pending till date and communicate such decision to the petitioner.
8.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rka To The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 +1cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate, S.R.No.9174 W.P.No.11089 of 2011 RRK(20/02/2018)