A retired police officer challenged an order rejecting his request to re-fix his pay on par with a junior. The single judge bench held that different service rules applied to the parties and dismissed the writ petition.
None. The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
A.Kandasamy
...Petitioner
-Vs-
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Rc.No.B2/7203/2012 dated 06.11.2012 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner equivalent to junior Eswaran HC 1434.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
For Petitioners : S.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.11.2012, passed by the third respondent in Rc.No.B2/7203/2012, thereby rejecting the request made by petition seeking re-fixation of pay on par with his junior one Eswaran HC 1434
Easwaran was appointed as Special Police Grade II Category III Constable in the year 1981. Later in the year 1983, he transferred from
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
Grade II Category II to Category II as Constable. Later he was promoted and transferred to the Head Constable. However, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.5,800/-, whereas the petitioner's basic pay was fixed at Rs.4,200/-. Therefore, the petitioner made request to the third respondent to re-fix his pay and the same was rejected by the impugned order. Hence the petitioner filed this present writ petition with the above said prayer.
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
G.O., it is very clear that in future, it should be indicated to the persons,
who are opting for transfer that they shall be paid salary benefit in the lower ranking persons. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions.
since the service rules for appointment is different from one another viz.,
the Tamil Nadu Special Police Personnel are appointed under Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service, whereas the District Armed
Reserve Police Personnel are appointed under Tamil Nadu Subordinate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
Service Rule. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for re-fixation of pay
and hence, the third respondent rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
be no order as to cost.
25.07.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order
rts
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
W.P.No.13152 of 2013
25.07.2023
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pay can be re-fixed on par with a junior when appointment rules differ.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petition for re-fixation of pay was illegal.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for re-fixation of pay equivalent to a junior.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Kandasamy
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police
The Superintendent of Police
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
