Madras High Court
T. Dhasian vs The Commissioner Of Police on 13 April, 2006
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13/04/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
W.P.No.25237 of 2005 (T)
T. Dhasian .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police,
Chennai-600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Crime Branch C.I.D.,
Northern Zone, Chennai-2. .. Respondents
Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of
O.A.No.2775/2003 to call for records of the respondents especially the second
respondent relating to his proceeding made in R.C.No.A2/246/2373/02 dated
21.04.2003 and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and
consequently directing the respondents to refix the petitioner s seniority on
par with his junior Thiru. Suyambu M.C.6654 of Chennai City Police permitting
him to undergo tests for further promotion as Sub-Inspector of police pursuant
to crucial 2002-2003 panel fixing him name in the suitable place therein and
promote him as SubInspector of police with all attendant benefits.
!For Petitioner : Mr. A. Amalraj
For Respondents: Mr. R. Lakshminarayanan, GA
:ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 21.04.2 003 and direct the respondents to refix the petitioners seniority on par with his junior Thiru. Suyambu M.C.6654 of Chennai City Police permitting the petitioner to undergo tests for further promotion as Sub-Inspector of police pursuant to crucial 2002-2003 panel and fix him name in the suitable place therein with consequential promotion and attendant benefits.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows:
(i) The petitioner joined service on 14.10.1976 as Grade II Constable and he was posted at Madras City Armed Reserve. The petitioner while working in the Armed Reserve, Madras City Police, his name was included in the C list of Police Constables fit for promotion as Naik by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 14.05.1980 and thereafter, he was referred to the promotion Board during 1981 and accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Grade I Constable on 04.09.1981. The petitioner passed all the prescribed tests and secured high marks and accordingly, his name was entered in the Service Book kept for the purpose of fixing Grade-I scale apart from entering his name into the Long-Roll with effect from 30.09.1981 after enhancing his scale of pay from Rs.305/- to Rs.325/-. The petitioner underwent training both in Armed Reserve as well as Law and Order, he was promoted as Naik only on 14.05.1980 and Grade I Police Constable on 04.09.1981.
(ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that Grade I Police Constable bearing No.6654, namely, Suyambu, who is his Junior, whose appointment was made during December 1976, was transferred from Armed Reserve to Dog-Squad in the year 1982 and in the same year, the petitioner was transferred from Armed Reserve to City Traffic Police without any willingness. The petitioner and Suyambu were transferred to different Departments without stipulating any norms or conditions or attaching any special importance. According to the petitioner, there is no norms existed in the matter of transfer to various Departments, namely, Dog-Squad and Traffic Wing. The said transfer was also made without following any guidelines. The said Suyambu was given continuity of service and also was given the post of Grade I Police Constable.
(iii) Taking note of the Armed Reserve service with effect from 04.0 9.1981, (even though his transfer to Dog-Squad), he was promoted as Head Constable with effect from 20.06.1984. But the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable without any reason. The petitioner made repeated representations and the said representations were not considered. The representation made by one Mani, who worked as Grade II Constable, in December 1992, was suitably considered as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 09.12.1992 and he was given double promotion at a time, as Grade I Constable and Head Constable by giving retrospective effect, i.e., with effect from 30.12.1985.
(iv) The petitioner, further states that, while he was working in the Armed Reserve, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 04.09 .1981 and he continued as Grade I Police Constable till 1992 on his transfer to Traffic Police and thereafter in the traffic police as well as in the Local Police, he was treated only as Grade-II Constable and he was given promotion as Grade-I Police Constable only with effect from 01.08.1994 and promoted as Head Constable with effect from 01.08.1999. The petitioner further states that while working in Armed Reserve as Grade-II Constable, he appeared before the Promotion Committee along with his 25 batchmates and only 3 persons, including the petitioner, passed in all the tests and qualified for further promotion and accordingly, he was promoted as Grade I Constable on 04.09.1981 and therefore, he is entitled for continuous service benefits irrespective of the scope of promotion of his batchmates enlisted in the year 1976 and the denial of the said benefit in respect of petitioners promotion as Grade-I Police Constable on 0 4.09.1981, is unjust and illegal. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned order on 21.04.2003 and stated that the Head Constable 6654, namely, Suyambu, the batchmate of Head Constable 6545 Dhasian, was promoted as Grade-I Constable and as Head Constable on 20.06.1984, while working in Dog-Squad and the lien of Head Constable 6654 Suyambu, has been transferred to local Police in the rank of Head Constable and posted to Dog-Squad as Head Constable as a special case since dog squad is a special unit and no one was willing to serve in the Dog-Squad at that time.
(v) It is further stated that, none of the petitioners Juniors were promoted as Head Constable prior to 01.08.1999. The said order is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that the arbitrary treatment given to the petitioner is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner should have been transferred to the Traffic Wing in the same promoted post and no option was obtained from the petitioner to forgo his seniority in the Armed Reserve. The petitioner having come out successfully in the selection in the year 1981 along with 2 others and having been promoted as Grade-I Constable on 04.09.1981, he is entitled to be posted in the Traffic Wing as Grade-I Police Constable. The said Suyambu, having been given the earlier service benefits, while he was transferred to Dog-Squad, the petitioner is also entitled to get the earlier service benefits from 04.09.1981 as Grade I Constable.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by he respondents. Para 5 of the counter affidavit states as follows:
I state that in fact, the said Suyambu had been working in Armed Reserve (AR), and continued to work in Armed Reserve and he was already promoted as Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable in 1984 vide CPO No.1405/84 dated 08.05.1984 while he was in AR. Later, Suyambu was transferred to taluk police (local police) in 10% quota since the 10% vacancy in local was to be filled up thereby the persons of AR in their same rank. Whereas, the petitioner had opted to work in local by which he got his turn of promotion on par with his batchmates who worked in local. Therefore, he was promoted belatedly after Thiru.Suyambu. Later, the said Suyambu participated in the test for promotion of Sub-Inspector of Police and got promotion as SI of poice on merits vide CPO No.2475/2003 in C.No.EsttII(1)/637/77037/2003, dated 04.09.2003.
4. Citing the said paragraph in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the petitioner was not given promotion as grade-I Police Constable prior to his posting in the Traffic Wing. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced an order showing the promotion of the petitioner as GradeI Police Constable vide CPO 2594/81 dated 04.09.1981. The said order of promotion is filed in page 10 of the typed set of papers.
5. The respondents were given ample opportunity to clarify whether the promotion is given to the petitioner is taken note of and the counter affidavit is filed in a proper manner?. The learned Government Advocate was given time to verify and state whether the promotion is given to the petitioner on 04.09.1981 as per the above order and the matter was adjourned to clarify the said fact on the following dates : 06.03.2006,10.03.2006, 17.03.2006, 23.03.2006 and 13.04.2006 (i.e., today). Till date, no reply is forthcoming from the respondents side and therefore, it is to be taken that the petitioner was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 04.09.1981 as per the order filed in page 10 of the typed set of papers.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking note of the said promotion, pointed out that the petitioner is therefore, entitled to be treated similar to the promotion and other benefits given to the said Suyambu.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner passed the Departmental test and he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable vide CPO 2594/81 dated 04.09.1981 and while serving as Grade-I Police Constable, he was transferred to Traffic Wing and he was erroneously placed as Grade-II Police Constable in the Traffic Wing whereas the said Suyambu, who was also working as Grade-I Police Constable has been transferred to Dog-Squad and he was posted as Grade-I Police Constable and he was given all the promotional benefits. The said action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner and the said Suyambu equally for the purpose of further promotions is discriminatory and violating the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. The submissions made in paragraph 5 of the 2nd respondents counter affidavit, dated 23.02.2006 is contrary to the records. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he was given promotion as grade I Police Constable on 04.09.1981. The said fact is suppressed by the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit for the purpose of justifying the illegal order passed. The petitioner produced the said promotion order and the respondents were given sufficient time to disprove the same. As stated above, no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents side and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was rightly promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 04.09.1981 and not giving promotion to the petitioner to that of the said Suyambu is arbitrary and illegal.
9. In the light of the above findings, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the further promotions in accordance with law. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Northern Zone, Chennai-2.
=============================================================== Against this case, W.A. No.1071 of 2007 is filed and it is ALLOWED on 29.04.2009 by The Division Bench consisting of THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN