Madras High Court
V.Chenthamarakshan vs The Director General Of Police on 22 January, 2015
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.16736 of 2007
(O.A.No.377 of 2003)
V.Chenthamarakshan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004
2. The Inspector General of Police (Technical Services)
Police Telecommunication
Chennai 600 004
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
(Technical Services)
Police Telecommunication Branch
Chennai 600 004 .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Police in Police Radio Branch for the year 1998-99 from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner :: Mr.A.S.Kaizer
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Govindasamy
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner-Mr.V.Chenthamarakshan filed O.A.No.377 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai when he was 57 years old, seeking a direction against the respondents to promote him as Inspector of Police in Police Radio Branch for the year 1998-99 from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential monetary and service benefits. Within a year of such filing, the petitioner, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service. Subsequently, the matter came on transfer and renumbered as a writ petition.
2. Although the petitioner had mentioned that there was no age restriction imposed for promotion as Inspector of Police in Police Radio Branch, one Mr.Kesavan was promoted as Inspector of Police just four days before his retirement. But the petitioner alone was discriminated and denied promotion as Inspector of Police on the ground that he was overaged. Such an action of the respondents is without any proper application of mind, since he was working as Sub Inspector of Police for the past 15 years without any promotion.
3. It is at this point of time, Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by placing on record the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.42618 to 42623 of 2006 etc. dated 15.7.2009, submitted that the aforesaid writ petitions seeking a similar and identical relief were dismissed on the ground that all the petitioners therein had retired from service, as a result, the prayer had become infructuous. In the present case also, the petitioner, within one year after the filing of O.A., retired from service. Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition.
4. In view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner retired from service long time back, this Court finds it difficult to accept the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.01.2015 ss To
1. The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004
2. The Inspector General of Police (Technical Services) Police Telecommunication Chennai 600 004
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Services) Police Telecommunication Branch Chennai 600 004 T.RAJA, J.
ss W.P.No.16736 of 2007 (O.A.No.377 of 2003) 22.01.2015