← Library
Madras High CourtWP/659/2016disposed of

C.Pachaimal (Gr. I Pc 10048) v. The Government Of Tamilnadu

2016-01-08Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 08.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.659 of 2016 C.Pachaimal ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Home Department Fort St.George Chennai-9.

2. The Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai Mylapore Chennai-4.

3. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to upgrade the petitioner to the rank of Grade-I Police Constable, Head Constable, Special Sub Inspector of Police on par with his batch mate by considering the proposal of the 2nd respondent vide the proceedings Rc.No.190567/NGB.III[2]/2012 dated 23.8.2014 and further directing the 1st respondent to give the Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 01.06.2014 with monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents : Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, AGP

O R D E R

With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner submitted his application to the respondents to upgrade his post to Grade-I Police Constable, Head Constable and Special Sub Inspector of Police on par with his batch mates. Since the said representation was not considered in spite of the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent on 23.8.2014, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The documents available on record clearly show that the Director General of Police vide proceedings dated 23.8.2014 made a proposal to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for upgradation.

The 2nd respondent forwarded the names of 18 Constables for upgradation, which includes the name of the petitioner. However, while considering the proposal, the 1st respondent, appears to have omitted the name of the petitioner.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court directs the 1st respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.8.2014 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

gya Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

3. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City. Vepery, Chennai -600 007.

+ 1 cc to Mr.A.Rajaram, Advocate Sr 1949 KR/3/2/16 W.P.No.659 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/