Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Thangapandian on 26 June, 2012
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, B.Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26/06/2012
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
WRIT APPEAL (MD)No.361 of 2012
WRIT APPEAL (MD)No.364 of 2012
and
WRIT APPEAL (MD)No.367 of 2012
AND
M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 1 and 1 of 2012
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Home Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 09.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai- 04.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. ... Appellant in all the
the above Writ Appeals
Vs.
1.P.Thangapandian ... Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.361/2012
2.S.Michcel Anthony ... Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.364/2012
3.R.Paul Turai ... Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.367/2012
PRAYER
Writ Appeal (MD)No.361 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2989 of
2011 on the file of this Court.
Writ Appeal (MD)No.364 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2888 of 2011 on
the file of this Court.
Writ Appeal (MD)No.367 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2011 on
the file of this Court.
!For Appellants in
all the Writ Appeals ... Mr.K.Mahendran,
Spl.Govt.Pleader
^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sarvanan
all the Writ Appeals
:COMMON JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.2888, 2989 and 4864 of 2011 directing the appellants to give notional promotion to the Respondent(s) taking into consideration their initial date of appointment and also applying the ratio of decision in W.A.No.500 of 2008, the Government preferred these appeals.
2. Respondent(s) entered Service in Police Department on various dates and they were promoted as Head Constable, SSI on various dates as under:-
Sl Particulars P.Thanga S.Michel R.Paul Turai No Pandian Anthony 1 Date of initial 14.11.1997 14.02.1978 12.09.1975 appointment as Constable at Palayamkottai Armed Reserve 2 Date of promotion 01.08.1999 01.08.1999 05.01.1998 as Head Constable 3 Date of Promotion 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 14.03.2009 as SSI 4 Seniority fixed 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.06.2008 from 5 Retired from 31.05.2011 30.04.2011 30.11.2009 Service on
3. The case of the Respondent(s) is that they ought to have been promoted as Head Constable in the year 1995 itself but there was a delay of four years for the promotion and there is no proper explanation regarding the delay in Respondent(s)' promotion. Grievance of the Respondent(s) is that promotion to SSI on 1.1.2010 and the action of the fixing seniority is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and therefore, the seniority should be fixed in the right place in the light of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997. Respondent(s) also contend that the seniority has been challenged by way of several Writ Petitions and suitable directions were also issued to the appellants in W.A.500 of 2008 and that the same was not followed.
4. Respondent(s) approached the appellants to give them notional promotion as Head Constables from 1995 and re-fix their seniority. The request of the respondent(s) was rejected by the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.A2/10465/2011 dated 20.2.2011 observing that G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol-V) Department, dated 7.1.2010 will not enure to the benefit of the Respondent(s). Challenging the impugned proceedings, Respondent(s) filed Writ Petition to quash the impugned proceedings and also seek direction to the Department to give notional promotion to the Respondent(s) and also to revise their seniority.
5. The appellants entered appearance. When the appellants were yet to file their counter, Writ Petitions were allowed directing the appellants to give notional promotion to the Respondent(s) taking into consideration the initial date of appointment prior to transfer to the Armed Reserve. The learned Judge placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.500 of 2008 dated 16.6.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and observed that the date of initial appointment must be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the seniority.
6. Being aggrieved by the direction, the Department has preferred these Appeals. Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the Respondent(s) have no prior service before transferring to Armed Reserve because the Respondent(s) were initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable only at Armed Reserve, Tirunelveli. It was further submitted that W.A.No.500 of 2008 was filed for fixing seniority between the police personnel enlisted directly as Grade II Police Constable at Armed Reserve and Police Personnel who were initially appointed as Grade II PC at Tamil Nadu Special Police and subsequently transferred to Armed Reserve and that the said ratio of the said decision has no bearing to the case on hand. He would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police III) Department, dated 21.7.1998, the Police Personnel who have completed 25 years of total service within 10 years of service in the rank of Head Constable are to be upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, Respondent(s) were upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 1.1.2010 and the Respondent(s) were upgraded in accordance with various Government Orders.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent(s), Mr.D.Sarvanan, submitted that the respondent(s) ought to have been promoted as Head Constable from 1995 itself and that there was a delay of 4 years for their promotion and the seniority fixed as SSI on 1.1.2010 is wrong and not in accordance with the Government Orders. It was further submitted that the learned Judge rightly directed the appellants to give promotion to the Respondent(s) and refix their date of upgradation as SSIs.
8. The Government, in their order in G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 have commenced the upgraded scheme in a time bound manner in respect of Police Personnel and those Grade II Police Constables, who had completed 10 years of service, were ordered to be upgraded as Grade I Police Constables and Grade I Police Constables, who had completed 5 years of service, were ordered to be upgraded as Head Constables and similarly in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police III) Department, dated 21.7.1998, the Government have introduced the scheme of upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, for which Police Personnel appointed as Grade II Police Constable should have completed 25 years of service, out of which, for 10 years, they should have served as Head Constables, and 1st June of every year was fixed as crucial date.
9. Accepting the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu Police Commission (Third) Recommendation No.216, which is mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Po.V) Department, dated 7.1.2010, the Constables who have completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years of service have been completed as Head Constable were to be upgraded as SSI. Clause (iii) of Paragraph 4 of the said G.O. read as under:-
"(iii) The Constable who have completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years of service have been completed as Head Constables and not able to get regular promotion as Sub-Inspectors of Police may be given upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police from the 1st of the month succeeding the date of completion of 25 years of service by the respective Deputy Inspectors General of Police/Commissioners of Police."
10. Clarifying G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997, the Government issued Letter No.107160/fh-5/95-2 dated 7.1.98 to the Director General of Police, Chennai, as to how the promotions have to be given in a phased manner.
11. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the clarification letter, which read as follows:-
Year of Number of Promotion should Promotion given upgrada- Police have been given on the total tion Constables in the year number of years as Head Constable of service (1) (2) (3) (4)
1)1992-93 9000 1997-98 As Grade I (31.12.75) Constable for 5 years, total service 22 years
2)1993-94 4000 1998-99 As Grade I Constable for 5 years, (31.1.78) total service 21 years
3)1995-95 4000 1999-2000 As Grade I Constable for 5 years, (31.12.80) total service 20 years
4)1995-96 4000 2000-2001 As Grade I Constable for 5 years, (31.8.84) total service 16 years
12. As per the said G.O., 9,000 Constables appointed till 1975 were to be promoted as Head Constable in 1997-98, 4,000 Constables appointed till 31.1.1978 were to be promoted as Head Constable in 1998-99 and so on.
13. In the light of the above Government Orders and Clarification Letter dated 7.1.1998, let us consider the present case.
14. P.Thangapandian, who was appointed on 14.11.1977 and Michel Anthony, who was appointed on 14.2.1978, would come under the second slot for whom promotion of Head Constable is to be given in 1998-99. In compliance of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and Clarification Letter dated 7.1.1998, they were promoted as Head Constable on 1.8.1999. Paul Turai, who was appointed on 12.9.1975 would come under the first slot, was promoted as Head Constable in 1997-98. In compliance of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997, and the said Clarification Letter, Paul Turai was duly promoted as Head Constable on 5.1.1998. The Respondents' promotion is well in accordance with the said G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and the Clarification Letter No.107160/fh-5/95-2 dated 7.1.98. The contention of the Respondent(s) that they should have been promoted as Head Constable even in 1995 itself, is without any basis.
15. Even though the Respondent(s) contend that they ought to have been promoted as Head Constable in 1995 itself, the same is not substantiated. Respondent(s) can be promoted only as per the Government Order, viz., G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and also as per the Clarification Letter No.107160/fh-5/95-2 dated 7.1.98. Promotion as Head Constable on the respective dates is well in accordance with the Government Order as well as the said Clarification letter of the Respondent(s), and the Respondent(s) cannot have any grievance.
16. The learned Judge allowed the Writ Petitions following the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.500 of 2008 dated 16.6.2008 and directed the appellants to take into consideration the respondents' initial date of appointment prior to transfer to the Armed Reserve. Since the learned Judge has followed the decision rendered in W.A.No.500 of 2008, we have also perused the judgment in W.A.No.500 of 2008 dated 16.6.2008 and also order in W.P.No.27036 of 2005 (dated 13.4.2006), out of which, the said appeal arose.
17. By perusal of the judgment in the said Writ Petition and in the writ Appeal, we find that the facts and points involved in the Writ Petition is totally different. The writ petitioner therein, A.Subbiah Pandian, was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Specil Police on 1.4.1981 and he was transferred to the Armed Reserve Police in Ramanathapuram District on 12.12.1993. The writ petitioner thereon raised objection regarding the seniority list and contended that his date of initial appointment in the Tamil Nadu Special Police has to be taken into consideration. In this context, the First Bench referred Rule 25(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.
18. As per the rules, the transfer of a person from one class or other category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as the first appointment latter on for the purposes of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred. Thus, Rule 25(b) enables to take into account the prior service in other categories like Tamil Nadu Special Police. Since the writ petitioner therein Subbiah Pandian was appointed as Grade II Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police and later transferred to Armed Reserve, referring to Rule 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordiante Service Rules, the First Bench has held that the petitioner's service from the date of initial appointment must be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating seniority. Thus, the issue involved in W.A. No.500 of 2008 was the seniority between the police personnel enlisted directly as Grade II Police Constable at Armed Reserve and police personnel who were initially appointed as Grade II Police Constable at the Tamil Nadu Special Police and subsequently, transferred to Armed Reserve. In the case on hand, the respondent(s) were initially appointed only in Armed Reserve. The respondent(s) have no prior service in the Tamil Nadu Special Police. The issue involved in W.A.No.500 of 2008 is totally different and that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the respondent(s).
19. As elaborated earlier in Paragraph 14, the respondent(s) were promoted as Head Constable in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 and the clarification Letter No.107160/fh-5/95-2 dated 7.1.98, we do not find any violation of the G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997. For being promoted as SSI, the Respondent(s) ought to have served at least 10 years of service as Head Constable and after 10 years of their service as Head Constable, they were promoted as SSI as per the dates indicated above. Since the decision of the Writ Appeal No.500 of 2008 is not applicable to the case on hand, the Orders under appeals are liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the orders in the Writ Petitions are set aside and these Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
asvm To
1.The Home Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 09.
2.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai- 04.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.