C.M.Jayaram(Ex.H.C.318) v. The Director General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.No.37814 of 2016 C.M.Jayaram ... Petitioner Vs.
The Director General of Police Chennai - 600 004.
... Respondent Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police from the year 2004 on completion of 25 years of service by taking into consideration the total service rendered by the petitioner from 1969 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits including pensionary benefits in the light of the representation made by the petitioner dated 04.08.2016 within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan For Respondents : Mr.N.Srinivasan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2.The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police from the year 2004 on completion of 25 years of service by taking into consideration the total service rendered by the petitioner from 1969 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits including pensionary benefits in the light of the representation made by the petitioner dated 04.08.2016 within a reasonable time.
3.The petitioner would state that he joined as a Police Constable on 17.11.1969 at Dharmapuri District. The petitioner was awarded with one punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year in P.R.8/90 and as against the said punishment, he preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, but the said appeal was rejected in R.C.No.66809/AP.2 (2)/2000 dated 27.04.2000. The charge memo was issued to the petitioner for the alleged delinquency of gross negligence of duty is, not keeping alert on additional sentry duty thereby resulted in death of one accused Govindan in the lockup of Kaveripattinam Police Station. 4.The petitioner would further state that similar departmental actions were taken against seven police personnel for the death of the
said accused. The punishment was modified in respect of the Inspector of Police and in respect of another Additional Sentry Police Constable like the petitioner, this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.28555 of 2005 filed by him vide order dated 05.07.2012 and observed that the person who was posted as Sentry at that time is responsible as per Police Standing Order and all other persons including Additional Sentry Police Constable are not responsible for the said misconduct. Since the petitioner was also posted as Additional Sentry Duty on 27.09.1988, he made representation to the respondent on 26.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.33781 of 2013 and this Court directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner within a stipulated time. Thereafter, the respondent vide proceedings dated 25.01.
2016 set aside the punishment awarded. The petitioner's seniority was also re-fixed. 5.The petitioner would further state that his seniority was refixed without taking into consideration of his seniority in the seniority list issued in D.No.143/81 in RC 21657/A1/81 dated 27.01.1981. Hence, the petitioner could not get upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police and he retired as Head Constable on 31.07.2007. 6.
policy decision was introduced by the Government stating that by way of administrative instructions, those who have completed 25 years of total service out of which 10 years as Head Constables were upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police and making promotion as Sub Inspector of Police through range promotion board was abolished and the age of 55 years for Head Constable for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police was also removed. Hence from 1998 onwards, a category called Special Sub Inspector of Police was introduced and the next promotion of Sub Inspector of Police was based on total service seniority.
7.The petitioner would further state that since the said upgradation policy was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, writ petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.2889, 2888 and 2864 of 2011 and the writ petitions were allowed and a direction was given, to give notional promotion by taking into consideration the date of appointment. The writ appeals filed against the said order in W.A.Nos.361, 364 and 367 of 2012 were allowed by the Division Bench and aggrieved by the same, Review Application Nos.10, 11, 12 of 2013 were filed and the review applications were allowed and the order passed in the writ petitions were restored. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order came to be
dismissed and the orders passed in the writ petitions were implemented and the petitioners therein were given upgradation notionally and it benefited them in the pension. The petitioner is also a similarly placed person. Hence, he made a representation dated 04.08.2016 to the respondent and since it evoked no response, came forward to file this petition.
8.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondent.
9.Considering the submissions made on either side and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2016, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 01.11.2016 pri Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No
R.SUBBIAH,J.
pri To The Director General of Police Chennai - 600 004.
W.P.No.37814 of 2016 01.11.2016