Allowed

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. v.Pandiyarajan

Madras HC21 Aug 2023WA(MD)/948/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order denying deemed upgradation. The Madras High Court applied the Full Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C.Srinivasan, which overruled V.Samy and upheld V.Ramachandran. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that benefit of promotion is granted only on completion of qualifying service.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed and no costs awarded.

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs v.Pandiyarajan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015 and MP(MD).No.2 of 2015

¶7

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

¶8

2.The Director General of Police (L&O) Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

¶9

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Special Branch Crime Investigation Division Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4

¶10

4.The Superintendent of Police Special Branch CID, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶11

...Appellants

¶12

/Vs./

¶13

V.Pandiyarajan ...Respondent

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act,

¶17

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶18

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to allow this writ appeal by setting aside the common order dated 28.11.2013 made in W.P(MD).No.17308 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

¶19

For Appellants : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.T.Arun Ganesh For M/s.M.Thirunavukkarasu

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶22

The State has filed this writ appeal challenging an order of the Writ Court passed in a batch of matter including W.P(MD).No.17308 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013.

¶23

2.The respondent counsel has filed a memo to the effect that the writ petitioner/sole respondent had passed away on 28.10.2017 leaving behind only his wife as legal heir and no issues out of their wedlock. His only request is that the factum of demise be recorded by taking this memo on record.

¶24

3.As far as the issue in question is concerned, it is covered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu 2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶27

Vs. C.Srinivasan dated 04.02.2022. The issues framed for consideration of the Full Bench are as follows:

¶28

“42.In view of the above discussion, we proceed to answer the second question that has been referred to this Full Bench hereunder:

¶29

“ We hold that the Division Bench in V.Samy case did not lay down the law correctly and we uphold the law laid down in V.Ramachandran case to the extent that there is no deemed upgradation or deemed promotion contemplated in the relevant Government orders and the benefit of upgradation/promotion to the next level can be granted/claimed only on completion of the qualifying service in each level/rank as prescribed in the relevant Government orders. At the risk of repetition, insofar as understanding the expression “ retrospective operation” is concerned, we hold that the Government orders operate prospectively but it imposes/grants new results in respect of a past event. In other words, the Government Order operates forward but it looks backward and in that it attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the Government order was issued. If the Government Orders are understood in this perspective, there is no need to get into the issue of “ retrospective

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶33

operation. Thus, we are of the view that the Division Bench while rendering the judgment in V.Ramachandran case has dealt with the Government orders in its proper perspective and the judgment in V.Samy case is hereby overruled”

¶34

4.The Hon'ble Full Bench has held that the decision of V.Samy

¶35

case did not lay down the law correctly and has upheld the law as laid down in the case of V.Ramachandran. In light of the decision to the effect that there is no deemed upgradation or deemed promotion contemplated in the relevant Government orders and the benefit of upgradation/promotion to the next level can be claimed only on completion of the qualifying service in each level/rank as prescribed in the relevant Government orders, this State Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,] 21.08.2023

¶37

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes msa

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶41

¶42

The Secretary to Home Department The Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai

¶43

2.The Director General of Police (L&O) Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

¶44

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Special Branch Crime Investigation Division Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4

¶45

4.The Superintendent of Police Special Branch Cid, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015

¶49

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶50

msa

¶51

Judgement made in W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2015 and MP(MD).No.2 of 2015

¶52

Dated: 21.08.2023

¶53

6/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. v.Pandiyarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Tamil Nadu v. v.Pandiyarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Mahamuni Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Somasundaram Chettiar Vs Sengaichami

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs K.Shanthi

K. Nagalakshmi, Vs Karthickkasi

Minor Rajesh Vs The Branch Manager

The Project Director, Vs J. Duraipandi(Died)