Madras High Court
C.Natarajan (Hc.No.504) vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 6 April, 2022
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 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)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
C.Natarajan (HC.No.504) ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10493/2019
N.Balasubramanian
(HC No.309) ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10494/2019
R.Rajamannar(HC No.2305) ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10495/2019
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai District. ... Respondents in all W.Ps
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd
respondent vide proceedings in C.No.A1/19691/411/2017 dated
21.12.2017 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned
and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pension and other
retiremental benefits by advancing the upgradation/notional promotion as
Grade-I Constable/Head constable on completion of 10/5 years and
upgrade as Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service.
For Petitioners in all
W.Ps : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
For Respondents in : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
all W.Ps Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The relief sought for in these writ petitions is to quash the
impugned order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings in
C.No.A1/19691/411/2017 dated 21.12.2017 and consequently to direct
the respondents to revise the pension and other retiremental benefits by
advancing the upgradation/notional promotion as Grade-I
Constable/Head constable on completion of 10/5 years and upgrade as
Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
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.
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
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
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
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.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
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
orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said case,
and if any benefit is granted, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the
competent authorities for redressal of their grievances. However, as of
now, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, dated 04.12.2022, is
to be followed in all respects.
6.With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are disposed
of. No costs.
06.04.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Ns
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai District.
W.P.(MD)Nos.10493 to 10495 of 2019
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
