Allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. P.Raju (Retired Hc 692)

Madras HC10 Apr 2024WA(MD)/653/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench allowed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that granted retrospective up-gradation to a retired police constable under a later Government Order relying on Supreme Court precedent denying retrospective effect to such notifications after retirement.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.02.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.15785 of 2012 passed by the Single Judge is set aside.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs P.Raju (Retired… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No.3570 of 2018

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶8

Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Home Department,

¶9

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶11

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶13

5.The Accountant General

¶14

(Accounts & Entitlements), Pension Section-15, 361, Annasalai, Chennai-600 018.

¶15

... Appellants/Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

P.Raju

¶19

Vs.

¶20

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶21

... Respondent/Petitioner

¶22

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.02.2013 passed in W.P.(MD) No.15785 of 2012.

¶23

For Appellants : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate For Respondent : No appearance

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Seshasayee, J.)

¶26

The respondents in W.P.(MD) No.15785 of 2012 challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.02.2013.

¶27

The facts are as below:

¶28

(a) On 13.03.1972, the respondent herein was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable and he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 09.03.1993. He was further promoted to the post of Head Constable in

¶29

2000, and he was superannuated on 31.05.2006.

¶30

_________Page 2 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶33

(b)Be that as it may, the Government came out with G.O.Ms.No.1681, Home (Police-V) Department, dated 12.10.1992, which paved way for up-gradation of stagnated Grade-II and Grade-I Police Constables, who have been serving for more than a decade without any promotion. The Government Order also indicates that this up-gradation will be done in a phased manner over a period of five years.

¶34

(c) The respondent would now approach the authorities to rework his upgradation based on G.O.(Ms) No.15, Home (Pol-V) Department, dated 07.01.2010, and required it to be retrospectively implemented from the date of his initial appointment. This was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and it is now under challenge in this appeal.

¶35

The respondent was served, but he chose not to appear. Placing reliance on the orders of two other Division Benches of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.890 of 2016, dated 04.01.2024 and W.A.(MD) No.724 of 2016, dated 21.02.2024, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.15, dated 07.01.2010 will have only prospective effect and cannot be given retrospective effect and the Government Order itself has

¶36

_________Page 3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶39

been issued some four years after the retirement of the respondent and hence, the respondent will not be entitled to any benefit under G.O.(Ms) No.15, dated 07.01.2010.

¶40

This Court accepts the said proposition to which this Court also finds support in the aforesaid two authorities of the two earlier Division Benches of this Court.

¶41

In the light of the above, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.15785 of 2012 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 10.04.2024

¶43

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ABR

¶44

_________Page 4 of 5

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶47

N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶48

ABR

¶49

W.A.(MD) No.653 of 2018

¶50

10.04.2024

¶51

_________Page 5 of 5

¶52

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

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. P.Raju (Retired Hc 692)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. P.Raju (Retired Hc 692)

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

D.Sakratees Vs G.Gomathi

C.Vijayarani Vs v.Chandrakumar

Sumathi D/O.Sethuraman, Vs Arunkumar

P.Killy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Joint Director of Vs M.Shanmugam

Krishnaveni Janardhanan, Vs Kamala