This Writ Appeal allows the police department's challenge to a Single Judge's order. The bench held that Fundamental Rule 27(17) was inapplicable because the petitioner was not overlooked by her junior, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Writ Petition dismissed; order of the learned Single Judge set aside.
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.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
Vs.
G.Kalaivani ...Respondent/Petitioner
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10913 of 2008, dated 11.04.2016.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.P.murugesan
1/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAJASEKAR,J.,]
Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondent-Police Department in the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10913 of 2008, dated 11.04.2016, wherein, the pay fixation of the Writ Petitioner was allowed.
2/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
Inspector General of Police issued a proceedings stating that “she was eligible to be included in the promotion panel [“C” List] for the year 2005-2006 and due to some administrative reason, her name was not included and it is also ordered to regulate the pay as per ruling under FR-27”. Based on the above order, the Writ Petitioner has given a representation to the 4th respondent to re-fix her pay but the same was rejected by the 4th respondent, by order dated 07.01.2008. Challenging the rejection of her pay she had filed the present Writ Petition. During pendency, pay of one S.Balasubramaniam, who was appointed as Junior Assistant on 25.06.2002, who is also senior to P.Ramesh, re-fixed on par with P.Ramesh. The same benefit to be extended to the Writ Petitioner herein but the same was not extended to her.
3/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
Assistant was also cancelled and recovery is also ordered.
for the appellants would submit that the Writ Petitioner sent a representation stating that her pay shall be fixed equivalent to one P.Ramesh is not sustainable since, he is not a junior to her and he is a senior to the Writ Petitioner. Further, he would submit that an order of refixation of S.Balasubramaniam, whose fixation of pay is made equivalent to P.Ramesh is also cancelled. Hence, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the Writ Petition. He further submitted that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Typist on compassionate ground on 27.01.2003 and after declaration of probation period, she was promoted as Assistant on 01.09.2006.
4/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
“(1 7) In case where a Government servant has been overlooked for promotional/appointment to the
5/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
next higher post but subsequently promoted/appointed to that higher post after restoration of his original seniority on appeal, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior provided he has drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post from time to time. If he has not drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post, his pay shall be fixed, on the date of assumption of charge, at the stage at which he would have drawn pay on that date had he been promoted/appointed to the higher post along with his junior. In cases where seniority has been restored on or after 19th September 1981, arrears of pay and allowance consequent of fixation of pay shall be admissible with effect from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post, in cases where seniority has been restored prior to 19th September 1981, arrears shall be admissible only with effect from the above date.
[G.O.Ms.No.977, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III), dated 6th October, 1986].
6/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
7/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
her.
pay fixation are not junior to her thereby, FR-27 (17) is not applicable to her.
8/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
(A.D.J.C., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 21.08.2024
ssi
Index :Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
To
9/10
W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.,
AND
K. RAJASEKAR,J.,
Judgment in W.A.(MD).No.41 of 2018
21.08.2024
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Fundamental Rule 27(17) applies to a government servant overlooked for promotion but promoted later after regularization.
Whether the Writ Petitioner was entitled to have her pay fixed on par with a senior employee.
Whether the Single Judge's order allowing re-fixation of pay should be set aside.
Director of General of Police, Chennai
Inspector General of Police (Administration), Chennai
Commissioner of Police, Madurai City
Superintendent of Police, Karur District
G.Kalaivani
A.D.Jagadish Chandra
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
