Allowed¶46

The State of Tamilnadu v. N.Arumugam

Writ Appeal – Service Law (Police) – Seniority from date of recruitment

Madras HC20 Aug 2025WA(MD)/971/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laches; fence-sitter; three-decade delay; seniority/notional refixation from date of recruitment (25.10.1984); Grade II to Grade I Police Constable promotion; Motor Transport Wing vs General Line/Armed Reserve; no separate seniority list; G.O.Ms.No.1623 dated 12.12.2008; G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 27.02.2017; writ appeal by State of Tamil Nadu allowed; Single Judge order in WP(MD)No.15629 of 2019 set aside; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar, JJ.; decided 20.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the order impugned in the writ appeal (order dated 31.10.2019 in WP(MD)No.15629 of 2019) is set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition CMP(MD)No.5269 of 2020 closed. ¶46

The State of Tamilnadu Vs N.Arumugam — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; the order impugned in the writ appeal (order dated 31.10.2019 in WP(MD)No.15629 of 2019) is set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition CMP(MD)No.5269 of 2020 closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction given by the learned Single Judge (notional refixation of the petitioner's seniority from his date of recruitment, 25.10.1984) deserves to be interfered with by the Division Bench in this writ appeal. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The contention that there could not be any separate seniority list for the Armed Reserve Unit and the Motor Transport Wing, and that the date of appointment (here 25.10.1984) should have been taken as the base date for fixing seniority and effecting promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable, is 'undoubtedly sound and correct'.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Despite the soundness of the claim, the doctrine of laches prevails: the petitioner was a 'fence-sitter' who, although the cause of action arose in 1989, a batch mate Thiru.R.Malaisamy was given relief, and similarly placed individuals who filed writ petitions in 2002 got relief in 2007, moved the Court only in 2019 — three decades late; he could have moved the Court in 1989 itself.

¶41

Key takeaways

The aspect of the petitioner's delay (laches) was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge, and therefore the Single Judge's direction warrants interference.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal — Service Law (Police) — Seniority from date of recruitment — Laches. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the learned Single Judge's order dated 31.10.2019 in WP(MD)No.15629 of 2019, which had allowed N.Arumugam (ex-Grade II Police Constable, joined 25.10.1984, posted to the Motor Transport Wing) notional refixation of seniority from his date of recruitment, resting on earlier decisions that date of appointment is the crucial date for seniority and promotion across the Armed Reserve and Motor Transport Wings (Division Bench judgment dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043 of 2002; order dated 04.04.2016 in W.P.No.9793 of 2013 re S.Manuel; G.O.Ms.No.1623 dt.12.12.2008; G.O.Ms.No.152 dt.27.02.2017). The Division Bench (G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar, JJ.) held the petitioner's contention on seniority 'undoubtedly sound and correct' but found him a 'fence-sitter': the cause of action arose in 1989, his batch mate Thiru.R.Malaisamy and similarly placed persons (relief in 2007) had moved earlier, yet he approached the Court only in 2019; the doctrine of laches cannot be ignored, and the learned Single Judge failed to note this delay. Writ appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, no costs, connected CMP closed. (Paras 5-6)

¶1

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

WA(MD)No.971 of 2020 and

¶7

CMP(MD)No.5269 of 2020

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep.through its Secretary to Government, Home ( Police ) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director General of Police, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 004.

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Appellants

¶12

Vs.

¶13

N.Arumugam ... Respondent/ Respondent

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 31.10.2019 made in WP(MD)No. 15629 of 2019.

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶18

For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.J.Anandkumar

¶20

JUDGMENT (B y G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

The Government has filed this writ appeal assailing the order

¶22

dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge made in WP(MD)No.15629 of 2019.

¶23

2.The petitioner herein joined the police department as Grade II Police Constable on 25.10.1984. Since he was possessing a valid driving license, he was transferred to Motor Transport Wing. Even though his batch mates who were posted in the General Line were promoted as Grade I Police in February 1989, the petitioner herein got such a promotion only on 03.11.1992. As a result, his promotion to the post of Head Constable, S.I of Police and Inspector of Police was staggered and delayed. The writ petitioner came to know that persons who were appointed in Motor Transport Wing like him were granted relief when

¶24

2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶27

they filed writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitioner filed WP(MD)No. 15629 of 2019. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in the following terms :

¶28

“6.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner is seeking relief of promotion based on the date of his recruitment. This issue was considered by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 18.09.2007 in W.P.No.25043 of 2002. The Division Bench has held that the date of recruitment is basis for fixing the seniority for promotion. Based on the said judgment, the petitioners therein were promoted as per G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police V) Department, dated 12.12.2008. Subsequently, one S.Manuel working in Armed Reserve Wing, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9793 of 2013 and as per the order of this Court, dated 04.04.2016 the said S.Manuel was given promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.152, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 27.02.2017. Subsequently, R.Malaichamy was promoted based on the date of recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.1623, Home (Police V) Department, dated 12.12.2008.

¶29

7.In view of the above facts, the impugned order of the third respondent holding that the

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶33

petitioner has not completed his probation on 01.07.1999 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to notionally refix the seniority of the petitioner by taking into the service rendered by him from the date of recruitment i.e., 25.10.1984. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits for the earlier period.”

¶34

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants reiterated al the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal and called upon us to allow the writ appeal.

¶35

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference and that he called upon this Court to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶36

5.The question that calls for consideration is whether the direction

¶37

given by the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with. The order of the learned Single Judge rests on the principle of equality. The

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶41

learned counsel for the writ petitioner drew our attention to G.O Ms No. 152, Home (Police) Department dated 27.02.2017 and took us through its contents. He pointed out that this Court had earlier taken a view that there could not be any separate seniority list for Armed Reserve Unit and Motor Transport Wing and the date of appointment should be taken as the crucial date for fixing the seniority and to effect promotion. Therefore, 25.10.1984 should have been taken as the base date for fixing seniority and effecting promotion to the post of Grade I Police Constable. This contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is undoubtedly sound and correct. But the petitioner appears to have been a "fence-sitter". When similarly placed individuals filed writ petition in the year 2002 and got relief in the year 2007, the petitioner moved this Court only in the year 2019. We cannot ignore the doctrine of laches. In fact, we go to the extent of remarking that when the cause of action arose in the year 1989 and when a batch mate Thiru.R.Malaisamy was given relief, the petitioner could have moved this Court in the year 1989 itself. He came to this Court three decades later. This aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge.

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.A(MD) No.971 of 2020

¶45