M.Krishnamoorthy Hc 971 (Retd) v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.4037 of 2016 1.M.Krishnamoorthy 2.M.Vajram 3.K.Shanmugam 4.P.Jeyaraman 5.R.Raghavan 6.V.Santhanam 7.M.Kamalanathan 8.P.M.Mani 9.G.Durai 10.C.Arumugam 11.K.Ramamoorthy 12.G.Krishnan 13.C.Munusamy 14.M.A.Periyasamy 15.N.Devaraj 16.N.Elumalai 17.S.Neelan .. Petitioners vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent passed in the proceeding in Na.Ka.No.A1/30294/2015 dated 6.1.2016 and quash the same and
directing the respondents herein to upgrade the post of petitioner as Grade-I Police Constable/Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police notionally giving monetary benefits in view of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home Department, dated 3.6.1997, G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department, dated 21.7.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.15 Home Department, dated 7.1.2010 herein in the light of the Judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2989/2011, 2888/2011 order dated 27.6.2011 and W.P.(MD)No.4864/2011 order dated 27.4.2011 and consequently direct revise his pension and grant him all consequential benefits.
For petitioners : Mr.V.Karnan For respondents : Mr.A.Kumar Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the 17 retired Police Personnels seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent passed in the proceeding in Na.Ka.No.A1/30294/2015 dated 6.1.2016 and quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to upgrade the post of petitioner as Grade-I Police Constable/Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police notionally giving monetary benefits in view of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home Department, dated 3.6.1997, G.O.Ms.No.937, Home Department, dated 21.7.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.15 Home Department, dated 7.1.2010 herein in the light of the Judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2989/2011, 2888/2011 order dated 27.6.2011 and W.P.(MD)No.4864/2011 order dated 27.4.2011 and consequently revise his pension and grant him all consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the facts involved in this case is similar in respect of all the petitioners, for the sake of convenience and disposal of the Writ Petition, the facts of the first petitioner is taken into account. The first petitioner, namely, M.Krishnamoorthy, was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police on 13.9.1971 and he should have been promoted on 13.9.1981 as Grade I Police Constable i.e. on completion of ten years but, he was actually promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 16.2.1993. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable on 8.1.1998, however, he should have been promoted as Head Constable on 13.9.1986 itself i.e. on completion of five years, and thereafter, he should have been promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 13.9.1996. Adding
further, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have not followed the principles and rules thereof in fixing the seniority of the petitioners. Having the wrong seniority fixed by the respondents, the petitioners could not get promotion on the due dates. In this regard, he would submit that the petitioners have made representations mentioning all those facts to the respondents and the same were rejected by the fourth respondent by the present impugned order. Adding further, he would submit that in similar circumstances, Madurai Bench in W.P.(MD)Nos.2988, 2989 dated 27.6.2011 and W.P.(MD) No.4864 of 2011 dated 27.4.2011, granted the benefits to the petitioners therein and therefore, he prays that the benefit of the said judgment may be extended to the present petitioners also.
4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition has been once and for all decided by this Court in W.P.No.22240 of 2015 by order dated 23.7.2015 in the case of M.Vadivelu vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range and two others, and the Writ Petition was dismissed with an observation that even on completion of ten years/five years/ten years, one cannot seek automatic upgradation as Grade I Constable/Head Constable/Special Sub-Inspector of Police, respectively, since if any disciplinary proceedings are pending, the upgradation would be deferred.
5. As the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is covered by the order dated 23.7.2015 passed in W.P.No.22240 of 2015, it is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the order:- "9. In this case, the petitioner was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable in 1991 and thereafter, he was upgraded as Head Constable on 28.7.1998.
Since the petitioner did not complete ten years of service as head Constable he was not further granted upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police.
10. Even on completion of ten years/five years/ten years, one cannot seek automatic upgradation as Grade I Constable/Head Constable/Special SubInspector of Police, respectively, since if any disciplinary proceedings are pending, the upgradation would be deferred.
11. In the Judgements, relied on by the petitioner, it was not held that the Government Orders referred to by the petitioner provides for retrospective upgradation.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs."
6. A close reading of the aforesaid observations would clearly show that the issue is no longer res-integra and the contention of the writ petitioners deserves to be rejected. In view of the said order, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same fails. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
asvm -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To
1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.V.Karnan, Advocate SR 7030 jsv(co) prk5/2 W.P.No.4037 of 2016