K.Rajendran v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR K.Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District.

2.The Additional Superintendent of Police cum Public Information Officer, Head Quarters, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

3.Natarajan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.1/31917/2014 dated 15.12.2014 and communicated by the 2nd respondent in his Order No.783/R.T.I Act/D.C.R.B./N.D./2014 dated 15.12.2014 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to fix the salary of the petitioner at par with the 3rd respondent and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits and grant such other further reliefs. Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1/31917/2014 and Order No.783/R.T.I. Act/D.C.R.B./N.D./2014 dated 15.12.2014, whereby, the request made by the petitioner for the step-up of the upgradation of his pay on par with the third respondent was rejected on the ground that the pay of the third respondent was fixed based upon the higher education qualification and to quash the same besides a consequential direction for upgradation and fixation of his pay on par with the third respondent.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents have filed counter affidavit and contended that the pay of the third respondent was never more than the pay of the petitioner herein and also stated that the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is a mistake on the part of the concerned officials. Therefore, the concerned officials were dealt with the departmental enquiry. In Paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 21 of the counter affidavit, the Page No. 2 of 5

respondents have categorically detailed about the pay that is being drawn by the petitioner and the third respondent.

3. A perusal of the records discloses that the petitioner herein has been drawing a higher pay than the third respondent.

4. In view of the same, there is no basis for the petitioner to make a claim for step-up. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for upgradation and fixation of pay on par with the third respondent does not arise. It is evident that the third respondent is drawing lesser pay than the petitioner. Therefore, though the reasons assigned in the impugned order is found to be incorrect, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 13.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order jas Page No. 3 of 5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District.

2.The Additional Superintendent of Police cum Public Information Officer, Head Quarters, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

Page No. 4 of 5

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

jas 13.06.2025 Page No. 5 of 5