V.Ganesan vs The Secretary To Government
2022 Latest Caselaw 7181 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7181 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 April, 2022

Madras High Court

V.Ganesan vs The Secretary To Government on 6 April, 2022

                                                                         W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019.


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED:06.04.2022
                                                    CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM


                                           W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019


                     V.Ganesan                                        ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     1. The Secretary to Government,
                        Home Department,
                        Government of Tamil Nadu,
                        Fort St.George,
                        Chennai-600 009.

                     2. The Director General of Police,
                        Kamarajar Salai,
                        Mylapore,
                        Chennai-600 004.

                     3. The Superintendent of Police,
                        Tiruchirappalli District,
                        Tiruchirappalli.                              .. Respondents


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give notional
                     promotion and retirement benefits in the light of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home

                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019.


                     Dept., dated 03.06.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.15 Home Dept., dated
                     07.01.2010 as per the Petitioners representation dated 21.07.2014.


                                        For Petitioner          : Mr.MA.Karunanithi
                                        For Respondents         : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
                                                                  Additional Government Pleader
                                                                  for R1 to R3


                                                           ORDER

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the

respondents to give notional promotion and retirement benefits in the

light of G.O.Ms.No.844 Home Dept., dated 03.06.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.

15 Home Dept., dated 07.01.2010, as per the Petitioner's representation,

dated 21.07.2014.

2.Based on such notional promotion, a batch of writ petitions were

filed with the similar claim for retrospective promotion and the learned

counsel for the petitioners made a submission that against the judgment

of the Hon'ble Division Bench, Special Leave Petition was filed and the

matter is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019.

3.However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents made a submission that during the pendency of the

Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the

Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court decided the issue and delivered the

judgment on 04.02.2022 as follows:

42.In view of the above discussion, we proceed to answer the second question that has been referred to this Full Bench hereunder:

“We hold that the Division Bench in V.Samy case did not lay down the law correctly and we uphold the law laid down in V.Ramachandran case to the extent that there is no deemed upgradation or deemed promotion contemplated in the relevant Government orders and the benefit of upgradation/promotion to the next level can be granted/claimed only on completion of the qualifying service in each level/rank as prescribed in the relevant Government Orders. At the risk of repetition, insofar as understanding the expression “retrospective operation” is concerned, we hold that The Government Orders operate prospectively but it imposes/grants new results in respect of a past event. In other words, the Government Order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019.

operates forward but it looks backward and in that it attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the Government Order was issued. If the Government Orders are understood in this perspective, there is no need to get into the issue of “retrospective operation.

Thus, we are of the view that the Division Bench while rendering the judgment in V.Ramachandran case has dealt with the Government Orders in its proper perspective and the judgment in V.Samy case is hereby overruled.”

4.As per the judgment of the full bench, the judgment in V.Samy

case was held as the law not correctly lay down and the judgment in

V.Ramachandran case, is upheld by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court.

However, it is contended that against V.Ramachandran case, Special

Leave Petition was filed and the same is subjudiced before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

5.In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Full

Bench upholds and as of now Special Leave Petition in V.Ramachandran

case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. If at all any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.13276 of 2019.

orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case,

and if any benefit is granted, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the