Allowed

R.Gajendiran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Jan 2019CRL OP/105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applications were filed challenging the order in W.P.Nos.22722 and 31507 of 2016 concerning promotion disputes between outdoor and indoor senior assistants. The court allowed the review, recalled the prior order to balance interests, and impleaded petitioners as respondents for a fresh hearing on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.12.2018 in W.P.Nos.22722 and 31507 of 2016 was recalled to decide the petitions afresh; petitioners impleaded as respondents.

R.Gajendiran Vs the Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

Review Application Nos. 105 & 106 of 2019

¶6

Review Application No.105 of 2019

1.V.Ravi Shankar

2.S.Bakthi Bai

3.V.M.Shanmugavadivu

4.K.Kalaiselvi

5.N.Mala

6.K.Vijayalakshmi

7.K.Meera Bai

8.T.S.Geetha .. Petitioners Vs.

¶15

1.The Transport and Port Workers' Union, Represented by its General Secretary, B.Soundararajan, No.193-B, Railway Colony, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶16

2.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

¶17

3.The Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents

¶18

Review Application No.106 of 2019

¶19

1.V.Ravi Shankar 2.S.Bakthi Bai 3.V.M.Shanmugavadivu 4.K.Kalaiselvi 5.N.Mala 6.K.Vijayalakshmi 7.K.Meera Bai 8.T.S.Geetha .. Petitioners

¶20

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

¶21

Vs.

¶22

1.S.Sebastian Sylvester

¶23

2.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai – 600 001.

¶24

3.The Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai – 600 001.

¶25

4.A.Salma

¶26

5.E.Manimegalai

¶27

6.Jaishree .. Respondents

¶28

PRAYER : Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. read with Section 114 CPC against the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.22722 and 31507 of 2016.

¶29

Prayer in WP No.22722 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating in Chennai Port Trust General Administration Department (RRC/5850/2013/GA) to the amendment made to the existing Chennai Port Trust Employees (Recruitment Service and Promotion) Regulations 2008 in respect of Assistant Superintendents to the post of Office Superintendent in Traffic Department published in the Government Gazette dated 03.02.2016 and quash the same.

¶30

Prayer in WP No.31507 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of direcation Declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondent not promoting the Petitioner to the post of Office Superintendent from the date when the 3rd 4th and 5th Respondents were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the Chennai Port Trust Employees (Recruitment Seniority and Promotion) Regulations 2008 and also declare the amendment brought to the recruitment rules for the post of Office Superintendent (Class III) in Traffic Department published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette NO.5 dated 3.2.2016 part III Section 2 of the Notification as illegal arbitrary and in any event hold such amendment to be prospective in nature and consequently direct the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner for

¶31

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

¶32

promotion to the Post of Office Superintendent on and from when the third respondent was promoted to the Post Office Superintendent with all monetary benefits and consequental benefits.

¶33

For Petitioners :^{Mr.G.Sankaran} (in both Review Applications) Mr.A.V.Arun for R1 (both Application) For Respondents : Mr.A.Abdul Hameed for M/s.AAV Partners for R2 in both Rev. Applications

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH.,J)

¶36

Seeking to review the order passed by us in W.P.Nos.22722 and 31507 of 2016, the present petitions have been filed.

¶37

The subject matter of the review is with respect to the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superintendent.

¶38

We have two separate categories of employees though joined initially as one. This is for the reason that one major chunk of employees opt to go outdoor and thereafter became Senior Assistant. They also relinquished the right for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent and thereafter as Office Superintendent. Now, the question for consideration is which category of those persons should be considered to the post of Assistant Superintendent and then Office Superintendent. The incidental question as to whether what is the position of those outdoor Senior Assistants promoted as Assistant Superintendents as against those waiting from the post of Senior Assistants working indoor. Resultantly, by our order, the writ petitioners who are working as Assistant Superintendents, while working earlier as Senior Assistants as the outdoor employees, have been given the benefits. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of promotion of the writ petitioners having been given up, and despite the fact that the petitioners are promoted by being the indoor employees, they are being reverted. We agree, this is certainly a case for review to be argued upon in the writ petition. This has come into being while giving effect to the order passed by us.

¶39

4.In such view of the matter, in order to balance the interest of both sides, without disturbing the promotions made

¶40

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

¶41

pursuant to the order passed by us, we are inclined to implead the petitioners as party respondents in the writ petition. We make it clear that, we are leaving all the issues open including the question over non-challenge regarding the promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. Consequently, the order passed by us dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.22722 and 31507 of 2016 stands recalled to decide the writ petitions afresh. Registry is directed to post the writ petitions before the appropriate Bench as per the roster.

¶42

The Review Petitions stand allowed. No Costs.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

ssm

¶48

To 1.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1. 2.The Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai – 600 001. Copy To The Section Officer, Writ Section, High Court, Madras +1cc to Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate SR.No.14273 +1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate SR.No.14503 +2cc to Mr.AV.Arun, Advocate SR.No.14329,14330

¶49

Review Application Nos. 105 & 106 of 2019

¶50

SSI(CO) GMY(06/03/2020)

¶51

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

R.Gajendiran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gajendiran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State Rep by

Prabakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Fahim Khan Vs the State Rep by Its

Hazar Abbas Vs State Rep by

Sumathi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abhirami Vs the Sub Inspector of Police