M.R. Madhavan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Writ Petition No.6592 of 2008 1.M.R. Madhavan 2.M.Jayaraman 3.K.Varadappan 4.P.Samundi 5.G.Dheenadayalan 6.A.Sayad Abbas 7.N.William 8.R.Bhoopathy 9.S.Mani 10.A.Akbar Sherrif 11.N.Kannan 12.N.Thankaraj 13.K.N.Thulasiraman 14.R.Kannan 15.K.Sivalingan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.
... Respondents Prayer:
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord Selection / Special Grade scale of pay on the date of completion of 10/20 years of service as Police Constable Grade II/Grade I and other benefits thereto in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned respectively and to consequently revise and refix the pension and pensionary benefits forthwith.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mrs.Thanga Vandhana Balakrishnan
ORDER
The Petitioners have filed the Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accord Selection / Special Grade scale of pay on the date of completion of 10/20 years of service as Police Constable Grade II/Grade I and other benefits thereto in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned respectively and consequently to revise and refix the pension and pensionary benefits forthwith. The Petitioner and 14 others have filed this writ petition from the same address at No.19, Subramani Iyar Street, Gas Godown Backside, Vasanthapuram, Vellore Taluk and District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they are seeking extension of applicable selection Grade and Special Grade respectively consequent on the completion of requisite number of 10/20 years of such service in the cadre of Police Constable.
3. The petitioners further submit that they were all initially appointed as Grade II constables and promoted as Grade I constable and then as Head Constable in which post they are all reached the age of superannuation. While working as constable, a scheme known as Flexible Complementing Scheme was issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1050, Finance (PC) Department dated 05.10.1978. As per the said scheme on and after completion of 10/20 years in a post without any promotional prospectus the individual was extended in a better scale of pay known as Selection Grade/Special Grade scale of pay. This was again reiterated by another Government Order of the Personnel Department in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 23.01.1986 wherein certain guidelines were issued. By another Government Order from P & AR Department in G.O.Ms.No.276 dated 07.08.
1992 all that which was required to obtain the Selection Grade/Special Grade was withdrawn and it further expanded that mere rendition of 10 to 20 years of service in a post would automatically entail the officer concerned to avail the said benefit. Since the petitioners have rendered more than 10/20 years of service in a post and they were not extended with the benefit of the G.O, either under Selection Grade/Special Grade which is continuous cause of action since it would have a bearing on the regular monthly emoluments as well as that of pension even after their retirement.
4. A collective representation was put before the authorities in Lok Adalath and referred to the Legal Services Authority.
The said authority in a proceedings dated 11.12.2007, closed the petition and permitted the petitioners to
approach the Hon'ble High Court. Since the respondents did not come for a settlement of the legal Services Authority, aggrieved by the arbitrary act of the respondents in not considering the legal claim as per the Government Orders, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.
5. The petitioners would also contend that when they approached the Legal Services Authority, it was explained that in so far as Constable Grade I and II are concerned, the Selection Grade is not allowed and through another scheme also it came to be explained that the same is effective from 07.08.1992 and subsequent thereafter the petitioners have not rendered the requisite number of service hence, they are not entitled to the said benefit.
The reasoning explained by the respondent is without any basis since it would be the Government Order which would prevail upon and not any administrative instructions and that too, without any specific reference either by way of another Government Order or otherwise as to why the Police Department alone did not allow selection Grade and Special Grade and due to which, the officers were stagnated without promotion. The respondents ought to have given the reason that as to why the same was not extended and granted without any reservation in the promotional avenue. It is denial of accrued service rights and fixation of Selection / Special Grade scale of pay.
The various Government Orders would show that the petitioners all have rendered clear and satisfactory record of service and the respondents ought to have consider the case of the petitioners herein. They would also submit that most of them have crossed the age of 65 years and they sought for speedy disposal of this writ petition.
6. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents stating that the first petitioner is the Retired Head Constable of Vellore District and he has filed the affidavit on behalf of 14 other reitred police personnel also. The service records of the first petitioner were examined along with that of three other petitioners who are identified as the retired Police Personnel. The identity of the remaining Petitioners is not identified and their service records are not examined. As the first petitioner has deposed in the afidavit that the claims of all the petitioners are similar in nature with regard to their service claim, the Service records o the following identified petitioners and the particulars of due service and monetary benefits extended to them during thier service are furnished as under:-
S.
No Name and Category Date of Birth Date of Enlistm ent & Educati onal Qualifi cation Date of Promot ion as Gr.I Date of movemen t of Selecti on Grade / Spl.Gra de in Gr.II PC Date of upgrada tion to the categor y of HC Date of Retire ment M.R.Madhav an, HC.2360 (SI.No.1) 15.11.1 01 / 05 /66 VIII Std 21.02.
01.12.1 982-SG 27.06.1 989Spl.Gr.
15.01.1 30.11.
N.Thulasi Raman, HC.1057 (SI.No.13) 15.10.1 20.12.1 IX Std 20.02.
14.09.1 981- SG 27.06.1 989Spl.Gr.
15.01.1 31.10.
K.Sivaling am, HC.2443 (SI.No.15) 01 / 07 / 42 02.09.1 IV Form 25.02.
21.12.1 982 - SG 27.06.1 989Spl.Gr.
15.01.1 30.06.
M.Jayarama n, HC 2403 (SI.No.2) 03 / 04 /48 10.12.1 VIII Std 24.02.
01.01.1 984 - SG 27.06.1 989 - Spl.Gr.
15.01.1 30.04.
7. From the above particulars of the tabular column, it could be seen that the individuals were extended all the service benefits due to them during their service in accordance with the service rules pervailing then and no service / monetary benefits due to them from the respondent and the petitioners claim is based on assumption that they are entitled for movement of selection grade in the constabulary posts on completion of 10/20 years of service in a category as a matter of routine. The same is not supported by any orders in force while they were in service. The Flexible complementing Scheme was a forerunner to the introduction of Selection Grade to the constabulary force and it preconditioned with passing of test empanelment in the 'C' list of Grade II Police Constables fit for promotion as Grade I Police Constables. The G.O.No.1050, Finance (Pay Commission) Department, dated 05.10.1978 is the notification
issued by the Government on the recommendation of the Third Tamil Nadu Pay Commission and it provides promotion aspects under the scheme of Flexible Complementing Comprising (i) Movement of Selection / Special Grade on completion of stipulated satisfactory service (ii) Advancement to Higher Grade (iii) Sanctioning stagnation increment once in service with cumulative effect. The Grade II Police Constables were under the category of advancement to higher Grade and the time bound advancement was called Special Temporary Posts. It is found that the individuals were moved to selection Grade only on passing the test on scrutiny of their service records. The scrutiny of the service records reveals that the individuals were extended such benefit of special Grade with effect from 27.06.
1989 and the Government Orders cited were issued regarding movement of Selection Grade and Special Grade to the Government Servants which were issued at various points of time in the process of simplification of movement of Selection Grade and Special Grade. The G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 23.01.1986, streamlined the movement of Selection Grade / Special Grade and re-introduced the concept of "satisfactory Service", originally recommended by the Third Pay Commission. For that one should possess the qualification and pass the tests, if any prescribed for next higher posts, to earn Selection Grade and Special Grade. In the G.O.Ms.No.276, Personnal and Administrative Department dated 7.8.
1992, the Government has removed the preconditions of possessing qualification or passing test moving for Selection Grade / Special Grade. The constabulary posts in the Police Department were not governed by movement to Selection Grade and Special Grade originally and governed by flexible complementing, as enshrined in G.O.Ms.No.487, Personnel and Administrative Department dated 18.04.1979. Only after Fifth Pay Commission Report and G.O.Ms.No.304, Finance (Pay Commission) Department dated 28.03.1990, the constabulary posts were brought into the Selection Grade and Special Grade on completion of 10 / 20 years of service with effect from 27.06.1989 as a matter of routine.
The petitioners served the force with reference to the service rules prevailing during the service period and extended the service benefits due to them on par with their contemporaries. Their claim to the benefits extended subsequently to the holders of the posts at later period to the Government Servants also, such as the petitioners with retrospective effect will amount to reversion of time machine and will also result in unending chaios and all the retired Police Personnel will knock the doors of the court by filing writ petitions similar to that of the petitioners. Before the Legal Services Authority, the petitioners were appraised all the Legal position and the petitioners did not accept the same. Hence they filed this writ petition.
at different points of time in the process of improvisation of service conditions since for valid reasons, at a given point of time. The petitioners were given all the benefits which were entitled to them, nothing survives in this writ petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
8. The petitioners filed the rejoinder to the counter stating that since the respondents had not given any details regarding the petitioners, the petitioners in the rejoinder have given a Tabular Column stating the date of appointment and date of retirement of the petitioners.
S.N o NAME ENLISTMENT NUMBER DATE OF APPOINTME NT DATE OF RETIREMENT M.R.MADHAVAN S/o.M.Raman HC. 2360 01/ 05 / 31.11.2005 M.JAYARAMAN S/o.
Munisamy HC.2403 10/12/68 30.04.2006 K.VARADAPPAN S/o.Krishnas amy Naidu HC. 2424 10/12/68 31.07.2005 P.SAMUNDI S/o.
Pathinatha Gounder HC. 1013 10/03/67 31.07.2002 G.DHEENADAYA LAN S/o. Gopal HC. 2820 11/01/74 31.05.2007 A.SAYAD ABBAS S/o.
Abdullah HC. 1610 21/11/62 30.06.1996 N.WILLIAM S/o.
Nathanvel HC. 284 01/12/64 01/05/01 R.BHOOPATHY S/o. Raja HC. 809 08/01/62 31.03.2001 S.MANI S/o.
Subarayan HC. 2556 01/06/63 31.05.1999
S.N o NAME ENLISTMENT NUMBER DATE OF APPOINTME NT DATE OF RETIREMENT A.AKBAR SHERRIF S/o.Ameer Sahib HC. 602 15/08/68 30.06.2006 N.KANNAN S/o.
Narayana manthiri HC. 2589 01/09/63 30.06.2002 N.THANKARAJ S/o.
Narayanasamy HC.1831 15/11/69 30.09.2006 K.N.TULASIRA MAN S/o.
Neelakandapi llai HC.1057 20/12/65 31.10.2004 R.KANNAN S/o.
Ramalingam HC. 1794 01/05/66 31.05.2005 K.SIVALINGAM S/o.
K.Kannan HC. 2443 02/09/63 30.06.2000 The Petitioners stated that from the above tabular column, it is clear that they are entitled to the benefits arising out of various Government orders stated supra, on completion of 10 / 20 years of service.
9. Heard both the counsels and perused the records.
10. It could be seen that the bald statement made in the affidavit that the petitioners 1 to 15 all are residing at the 1st petitioner's residence and the writ petition is being filed. Only plea, that they are all Grade -II constables and thereafter to be promoted to Grade I constables and Head Constables or the posts which they have been already holding without getting any promotion. The petitioners claim that though after completion of 10 / 20 years of service in the post without any promotional prospectus, they should have been extended with better scale of pay as the Selection Grade/Special Grade scale of pay by applying various Government orders issued in this regard. The petitioners in this affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition have not stated any details about their individual date of appointment and service rendered and even date of
superannuation. Only in the rejoinder filed on 11.03.2013 they have given the said details. The petitioners are not made any individual representation before the authorities. Only the 1st petitioner has made the representation on 15.12.2006 to the respondents stating that the Selection Grade should be given under the above said G.Os. The respondents in their reply dated 11.07.2007 have categorically denied the said request made by the 1st petitioner holding that the 1st petitioner had rightly drawn his pay duly regulated as per the orders in force and he has been drawing pension as the selection grade Police Constable - Grade II. Stating the reasons that the petitioners being paid the scale of pay as per the post he was holding the respondents rightly rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner. Hence this court is not inclined to grant any orders infavour of the petitioners and the same is rejected.
11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar drl To 1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 76800 W.P.No.6592 of 2008 SAI(CO) GN(22/02/2019)