Madras High Court
A.K.Kuppusamy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 2021
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
A.K.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichirappalli District,
Trichirappalli. ... Respondents
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to its order
bearing Rc.No.29077/NGB.III(2)/2017 dated 22.06.2019 and to quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to notionally promote the
petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of
service as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department dated 07.01.2010 and in
the light of the Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A(MD)No.1506 of
2011 etc., batch dated 17.06.2013 together with all consequential
monetary and service benefits forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order passed by the second respondent dated 22.06.2019 and for a
direction to the respondents to notionally promote the petitioner as
Special Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service as
per G.O.Ms.No.15, Home Department, dated 07.01.2010 and in the light
of the Division Bench Judgment rendered in W.A(MD)No.1506 of 2011
etc., batch dated 17.06.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Grade-II
Police Constable in the year 1976 and after serving 35 years of service in
the Tamil Nadu Police Department, he retired from service as Special
Sub-Inspector of Police on 31.05.2011. As per the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 03.06.1997, the
petitioner is liable to be promoted as Special Sub-Inspector of Police on
completion of 25 years, however, it has not been provided to the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, placing reliance upon the above
said Government Order and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.15,
Home Department, dated 07.01.20201, similarly placed persons like that
of the petitioner have filed writ petitions before this Court in
W.P(MD)No.331 of 2011, etc., batch and the same were ordered on
30.06.2011. Challenging the said order, the Government has filed
appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.1506 of 2011 etc., batch. The Division Bench of
this Court, by order dated 17.06.2013, extended the benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 03.06.1997 to all police
personnel, who have completed 25 years of service. The petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
also entitled for that relief as that of the similarly placed other persons
and therefore, he made a representation to the authorities on
04.07.2015, but the same was not considered. Therefore, he filed a writ
petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.3347 of 2017 for a mandamus
directing the respondents to consider his representation dated
04.07.2015 for notional promotion and retirement benefits in the light of
the G.O.Ms.No.844, Home Department, dated 03.06.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.
15, Home Department, dated 07.01.2010.
3. This Court, by order dated 14.03.2019, disposed the writ
petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's
claim, by directing the second respondent to consider the representation
of the petitioner, dated 04.07.2015 and to pass appropriate orders on
merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.
4. Accordingly, the second respondent / Director General of Police
dated 22.06.2019, has passed an order, rejecting the petitioner's claim,
which is impugned in this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and
also perused the order impugned in this writ petition.
6. Considering the problem of stagnation of police personnel,
without promotion, the Government had introduced a scheme of up-
gradation in a phased manner vide G.O.Ms.No.1681, Home Department
(Pol.V) Department, dated 12.10.1992 and as per which, up-gradations
were made as follows:-
Year No. of Gr.II Posts to be No. of Gr.I Posts to be
upgraded as Gr.I Posts upgraded as HC Posts
Total 21,000 2,700
The upgradation was ordered to be done once a year in October. It
was further ordered that promotion to these upgraded posts should be
based on the prescribed tests and that the direct recruitment of Gr.I PCs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
be filled up through promotions only. This GO does not specify automatic
upgradation at the end of specified number of years of service.
7. Thereafter, time bound promotion has been provided vide
G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 3.6.1997 that Grade-II
Police Constables, who had completed 10 years of service, are promoted
as Grade-I Police Constables and those who have completed total 15
years of service as Grade-I Police Constables are promoted as Head
Constable. Vide G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Pol.III) Department dated
21.07.1998, the scheme of upgradation has been extended upto Special
Sub-Inspector of Police on condition that the Head Constables, who had
completed 10 years of service, with a total service of 25 years, are
upgraded as SSI of Police subject to the conditions that they should not
have any punishment in the preceding 5 years and should not be facing
any charge under Rule 3(b). This power of upgradation was also
delegated to the Superintendent of Police and Commissioner of Police
vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 07.01.2010 to
upgrade Grade-II Police Constables as Grade-I Police Constables on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
completion of 10 years of service from the first of the month succeeding
the date of completion of ten years and to upgrade Grade-I Police
Constables as Head Constables on completion of 5 years of service in the
rank of Grade-I Police Constable from the 1st of the month succeeding the
date of completion of 5 years.
8. However, certain false representations have been made before
this Court that on completion of 25 years of service, a police constable is
entitled to be promoted as SSI and based on that, this Court has also
passed some orders, which were referred to by the petitioner in his
representation as well as in this writ petition. Such orders, which were
passed on wrong representations, were challenged before this Court and
Review Applications in Rev.Aplc.No.72 of 2015 etc., batch came to be
filed and this Court by order dated 22.03.2017 has rectified the mistake
and held as follows:-
“30. ...We have already held that since the Government
orders in question cannot have retrospective effect and that the
writ petitioners cannot claim that the benefit of “deemed
promotion” by reckoning the date of their initial entry into police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
service to claim the promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector
of Police much earlier.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the present case in the
light of the Government orders operating the field and materials
placed before us by the learned Special Government Pleader, we
are of the categorical view that the writ petitioners cannot claim
deemed promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police
and the attendant service and monetary benefits. We, therefore,
left with no other option but to respectfully disagree with the
decision rendered by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in
similar batch of writ petitions.
32. We wish to point out that we passed the common order
dated 23.04.2015 in W.A(MD)No.348 to 357 of 2015 batch of cases on
the submission made by the learned counsel that the issue involved
is covered by the earlier Division Bench decision dated 17.06.2013
made in W.A(MD)No.1506 of 2011. The niceties of the legal issues
and the real import and purport of the Government Orders were
omitted to be brought to our notice. We reiterate that it was only
on the ground an in this manner that several police Constables,
most them retired from service long back, reaped monetary
benefits that was not legitimately due to them under the
Government Orders concerned. In such circumstances, we cannot
blindfold ourselves by the earlier Division Bench decision to allow
the claim of the present writ petitioners. We are thoroughly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
convinced in the facts and circumstances of the case that the
Government has made out sustainable grounds for reviewing our
earlier common order dated 23.04.2015 in W.A(MD)No.348 to 357 of
2015.
In the result, while set aside the common order, dated
28.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD) No.15078
of 2010 etc., batch of writ petitions, we allow all the Review
Applications and the writ appeals filed by the Government. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are also closed.”
9. Subsequent to this judgment, several such other claims have
been rejected by this Court, which is also incorporated in the impugned
order. 25 such rejection orders passed by the Writ Court and the Division
Bench of this Court were incorporated by the Director General of Police,
in the impugned order, while rejecting the representation of the
petitioner. The Office of the Director General of Police can reject the
petitioner's representation by simply saying that he is not entitled for the
relief as per the Government Orders of upgradation and that the issue
was also settled by this Court that those orders are prospective and not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
retrospective. Instead, they have taken efforts, passed the impugned
order running to pages and have also referred to 25 orders passed by the
Division Bench as well as Single Bench of this Court rejecting such
requests.
10. Reasoning is a basic requirement for any order. Any order
passed without assigning reasons is like body without a soul. In fact, most
of the orders that are tested before this Court are passed in a cryptic
manner without assigning any reasons and that is the reason why, the
Courts are entertaining the litigations. Here, in the case on hand, a well
reasoned order was passed by the second respondent and this Court,
though feels that the reasoning / explanation could have been reduced
to some extent, is satisfied with the same.
11. In such view of the matter and in view of the settled position
of law, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed in the admission stage itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
12. Admittedly, a mistake has crept-in while passing the orders in
W.A.(MD)No.1103 of 2012, etc., batch, dated 17.06.2021, which paved
the way for the petitioner to file this writ petition. This mistake was
accepted and rectified by the Division Bench of this Court, in the
aforesaid review application. While allowing the review application, the
Division Bench has quoted the observation of another Division Bench of
this Court as follows:-
“35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies
only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is
more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the
Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, AIR 1988
SC 1531. It was observed that in the said decision that in
rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the
Court because no person should suffer due to the mistake of the
Court. Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by
the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it
is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1)
by Writ Petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission, and
(2) by getting those Orders implemented under threat of
contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that
was followed in all other cases, did not decide the Scale of Pay to
be granted for Selection and Special Grades..................”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
13. But, the Court alone cannot be held responsible for the
mistake. Courts are taking a decision based on the submissions / facts /
materials put forth before it by the respective Counsels. Therefore, the
Counsel, who appeared in those writ petitions, including the Government
Counsels, are also liable to take the responsibility. As an officer of the
Court, every Advocate, irrespective of their designation, whether private
Counsel or Government Counsel, is expected to place the correct facts
before the Court.
14. If any false representation is made before the Court by any of
the Counsel, action can be initiated as against them and the matter can
even be referred to the Bar Counsel for taking appropriate action.
However, we are not extending our arms to such extent, which is being
taken as an advantage by some Counsel.
15. In the case on hand, an attempt was made to get the relief by
referring the orders passed in W.A.(MD)No.1506 of 2011, etc., batch,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
dated 17.06.2013. But the fact remains that the orders which were
passed based on W.A.(MD)No.1506 of 2011 were reviewed and also got
set aside in Rev.Aplw.Nos.70 of 2015, etc., batch, dated 22.03.2017. This
review application order and 25 subsequent rejection orders passed by
this Court were referred by the Director General of Police in the
impugned order of rejection itself.
16. Without even verifying those orders, the writ petition came to
be filed in a mechanical manner. The petitioner may not be aware of the
legal position and the orders passed by this Court, which were referred in
the impugned order. His colleagues, who are similarly placed, have got
the benefits and therefore, he is attempting to get the same. He may
even attempt to get the relief by tweaking the facts. But, a Counsel, a
learned Advocate, is to verify the same and provide a proper advise to
his client. A duty is cast upon the Counsel not only to his / her client, but
to the Court as well. In this regard, a Full Bench of this Court, In Re
First Grade Pleader, Vellore, reported in AIR 1931 Madras 422, has
observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
“It is not the duty of a legal practitioner blindly to
follow every instruction of his client. That is an entire
misapprehension of the duty of a legal practitioner. He has not
only got a duty towards his client but he has got a duty
towards the Court, and it is his duty to see that the case is
fairly and honestly conducted. He must not trick or deceive
the Court or attempt to gain for his client an advantage by
dishonest means.”
17. This Court hopes and trusts that the Counsel understand the
responsibility cast upon them and discharge their duty diligently. They
should come with proper petition and proper prayer. The Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is expected to issue necessary circulars
sensitizing the learned Advocates of their responsibility and the need to
do their homework before filing any petition.
18. The mistake lies not only on the part of the Courts and
Advocates, but also on the Department. A Division Bench of this Court, in
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Department of School
Education v. M.Ruby and Another [CMP(MD)No.2892 of 2020 in W.A.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
(MD)No.SR67917 of 2019, dated 06.11.2020], in a condone delay
petition, wherein Myself was a party to the order, has held as follows:
“8. In fact, the trend of filing the appeal belatedly, now-
a-days, has become a habit on the part of the officials for the
reasons best known to them, even though the Government has
to pay heavy costs in case the delay is condoned or to spend
huge money by implementing the order passed by the Courts.
Sometimes, contempt petitions are also filed and the order
passed in the writ petition itself would not have been brought
to the notice of the authority, who is required to comply with
the order. Only at the eleventh hour, if the order is brought to
the notice of the concerned authorities, who are required to
comply with the same, at the stage of contempt, they would
eventually comply with the order, fearing order in the
contempt petition, even though the order requires a re-
consideration in the appeal. It is learnt that a few unscrupulous
corrupt elements, in the Department itself, by deliberate
design with the connivance of the litigants, get the orders
implemented, which are required to be assailed in the appeal
(emphasis supplied), without filing the appeal in time and
bringing to the notice of the higher officials only when orders in
contempt petitions are to be passed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
19. By borrowing the words of the Hon'ble Division Bench, this
Court reiterates that the correctness of the institution lies only in its
courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Therefore, this Court would
like to call for a report from the respondents as to the steps / action, if
any, taken by them pursuant to the order made in Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.72 of
2015, etc., batch, dated 22.03.2017, as regards the persons /
beneficiaries who were granted the benefit based on the judgment in
W.A.(MD)No.1506 of 2011, etc., batch, which was passed on a misplaced
representation and as regards the officials of the Department who have
sanctioned such benefits without obtaining any opinion.
20. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. For the report
of the respondents, let the matter be listed in the third week of
January, 2022.
Index : Yes / No 19.11.2021
Internet : Yes
am/gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
Note:
i) Registry is to mark a copy of this order to The Secretary, Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry.
ii) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirappalli City,
Trichirappalli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichirappalli District,
Trichirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
am
W.P(MD)No.20330 of 2021
19.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
