On the petitioner's application for retirement benefits and upgradation, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that no Government Order mandates retrospective grants of benefits for missing service rules.
Writ Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.1612 of 2018
K.Selvam
..Petitioner
-vs-
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent vide Order No.Rc.No.161257/NGB III(2)/2016 dated 31.03.2017 and directing the second respondent to grant notional promotion coupled with consequential monetary and service benefits such as re-fixation of seniority, pay and pension.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Respondents:: Mr.V.Kadhirvelu
Special Government Pleader ORDER
The petitioner is a retired Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 29.2.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was denied the benefit of upgradation at various levels. Therefore, after his retirement on 29.2.2012 from the post of Sub Inspector of Police, he has made a representation and the same was also rejected by the impugned order dated 31.3.2017. The said impugned order states
that the upgradation scheme was introduced and the benefit was given to police personnel only prospectively and his claim on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Pol.V) Department dated 3.6.97 and another G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.III) Department dated 21.7.98 cannot be accepted retrospectively. Having given upgradation to similarly placed Grade I Police Constables, Head Constables and Special Sub Inspectors of Police retrospectively pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, there is nothing wrong in giving the same benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, the negation of the petitioner's prayer on the ground that the upgradation scheme was introduced and the benefit was given only prospectively and it cannot be given retrospectively, is untenable and unjustified, he pleaded.
“18. No Government Order states that all the police personnel shall be granted upgradation as Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service, blindly, without anything more, even if he does not render 10 years of service as Head Constable out of 25 years of
service. The Government Orders no where provide for such upgradation as claimed by the petitioners.
this Court to fall in line with the previous order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19181 of 2013 dated 15.7.2013 and followed by me. Therefore, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in this writ petition, leave alone the ground of delay. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.2024 of 2018 is also dismissed. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ss
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore
Chennai 600 004
3. The Commissioner of Police
No.132, EVK Sampath Road
Vepery, Periyamet
Chennai 600 007
+1 CC to M/s. R. Karthikeyan, Advocate sr 6136.
+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 6972.
W.P.No.1612 of 2018
GMI(CO)
SP(14/02/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired police Sub Inspector can claim retrospective benefit of upgradation schemes denied prior to retirement.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to tag this petition with pending batch cases regarding similar upgradation claims.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Senthamarai and others v. The State of Tamil NaduReferred¶20
S.Senthamarai and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department and two others, WP.No.19181 of 2013
W.P.Nos.1571 to 1573 of 2018Referred¶27
K.Selvam
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Home Secretary
Director General of Police
Commissioner of Police
T.Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
T.Raja
Parties & counsel
