Partly allowed

D.Vivekanandan, v. Director General of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2017WP/7388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court refused to reject the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion on grounds of a technical defect regarding the addressee of his representation. The Court directed the petitioner to submit the representation to the correct authority within two weeks for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to submit the representation to the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, within two weeks and directed that the authority considers it and passes orders within eight weeks

D.Vivekanandan, Vs Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.7388 of 2017

¶6

D.Vivekanandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Director general of Police,
Law and order,
Chennai -600 004. ...Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of MANDAMUS, directing the
respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation
dated, 24.11.2016 regarding retrospective promotion to the post
of Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.06.2011
and pass order on merits and in accordance with law, within a
time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.K.DhananJeyan
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R

¶7

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the relief sought in the Writ Petition is for directing the respondent to consider the representation by the petitioner on 24.11.2016, with regard to the retrospective promotion to the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.06.2011.

¶8

2.The claim the writ petitioner is that he is entitled for retrospective promotion in the cadre of Special Sub-Inspector of Police. In this regard, he submitted a representation to the respondent on 24.11.2016.

¶9

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the representation was addressed to the Director General of Police, which in turn, ought to have been submitted before the Joint Commissioner of Police, South

¶10

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

¶11

Zone, Greater Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit the representation to the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Chennai.

¶12

4.However, this Court is of the view that in view of this technical defect, the claim of writ petitioner cannot be rejected. Therefore, the writ petitioner is directed to submit the copy of the representation dated 24.11.2016 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, South zone, Greater Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Joint Commissioner of Police is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
klt/rpa
To
1.The Director general of Police,
Law and order,
Chennai -600 004.
2 .The Joint Commissioner of Police, South Zone,
Greater, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.G.Bala Daisy, Advocate Sr. 49071
+1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 49716

¶14

W.P.No.7388 of 2017 SR(CO) VR(08/08/2017)

¶15

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

D.Vivekanandan, v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Vivekanandan, v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.P.Mullai Vs The Chairman cum Managing

S.Arunachalam, Vs The Management of Elavadi

B.Sreenivasulu, Vs The District Employement

C.G.Balakrishnan, Vs Animal Welfare Board of India

P.Sutha Vs The Appellate Authority and

P.M. Venkatesan, Vs The Senior Regional Manager