Madras High Court
K.Gopalakrishnan vs The Secretary To Government on 13 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.24915 of 2010
K.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government
Home (Police XI) Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai - 4.
3.The Addl. Director General of Police,
Armed Police,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
4. The Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ calling for the records of the
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the 4th
respondent in RC No.A1/8441/09 dated 10.09.2009 and quash the same and
direct the respondents to promote the petitioner at par with his batchmate
Paulraj and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mrs.E.Renganayaki
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, who since
superannuated, has filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the
impugned order dated 10.09.2009, whereby the request of the petitioner
vide his representation dated 17.03.2009 was rejected on the ground that he
cannot claim parity with the person pointed out by him viz., one Paulraj,
since he belonged to yet another specialized service and there is no
provision to claim parity by a person who is in a specialized service with
another specialized service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the petitioner is that it is not pursuant to any exercise
of option upon by which he was posted in the particular special branch i.e.,
motor transport branch. Persons were posted in the particular specialization
depending upon their qualifications. Because the petitioner had a driving
licence, he was posted in the motor transport branch. Because the said
Paulraj was in the particular (Radio / Telegraph) specialized branch, he
earned promotion ahead of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, this
is an anomalous situation arising out of administrative action of the
respondents. He is entitled the claim parity with the said Paulraj and
therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated
10.09.2009 passed by the respondents and consequently to promote the
petitioner on par with his batchmate Paulraj and to grant him all
consequential service benefits.
3. The respondents resisted the case by filing a counter affidavit. The
respondents would submit that the petitioner was posted to motor transport
wing as a Driver Police Constable, as he is technically qualified to serve in
the wing and as on date when he made the representation that he belonged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the specialized wing. It is the further case of the respondents that there is
no Rule which aids the petitioner to claim parity with that of Paulraj, who
does not belong to the same specialization or the general line. No benefit
can be claimed and therefore, the impugned order was passed rightly
rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
4. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mrs.E.Renganayaki, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit first that there is no sound logic on the part of the respondents in
denying the benefit. Admittedly the junior has got the benefit. He would
submit that even in the absence of the relevant Rules, the respondents ought
to have granted the benefit and the Judgment which is quoted in the
impugned order is totally in different circumstances which can have no
reliance to the prayer made in this Writ Petition. Alternatively, he would
submit that the representation also mentions the names in the general line
and according to him, as per Clause (f) of Rule 24 which permitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
migration to general line and claiming of seniority, the respondents ought to
have considered the case of the petitioner with reference to the general line.
He would also produce a representation dated 20.02.2002 made by the
petitioner, which is not part of the paper book, whereunder, migration to the
general line was specifically prayed for by him. Therefore, he would submit
that the impugned order should be quashed and he should be granted benefit
with reference to Paulraj or in the alternative stream, permit him to make a
representation afresh in respect of migration to general line and the
respondents should be directed to consider the same and pass fresh orders
thereof.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits
that as far as this Writ Petition is concerned, a perusal of the pleadings and
the specific prayer, it would be clear that the petitioner is claiming parity
only with the said Paulraj who belongs to the other specialized cadre. There
are two options, the specialized and the general line, which are totally
different compartments. Once the petitioner was posted in the particular
compartment, seniority and promotion will be given with reference to only
that speciality or in the alternative, if the petitioner wants to migrate to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
general category, he could have done so with reference to his original
seniority. But, in this case, there was no prayer for the petitioner during his
service to migrate to the general service, but, the only relief which is
claimed is in respect of the said Paulraj. He would further submit that the
earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.5654 and 5467 of 2009 dated
06.04.2009, only the representations of the petitioner dated 16.03.2009 and
17.03.2009 which were directed to be considered and in the said
representations, there was no prayer in respect of any migration to the
general category, but, the prayer is specifically only with reference to the
said Paulraj. Therefore, she would submit that both the specialized
categories are different compartments and no parity can be claimed with
reference to Paulraj and therefore, the impugned order rightly rejected the
request of the prayer made by the petitioner.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both
sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government
Pleader, the impugned order which is passed pursuant to the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
direction of this Court, is only with reference to claiming parity with the
said Paulraj and therefore, in the challenge to the said order and with
reference to the particular pleading raised in the Writ Affidavit, as well as,
the prayer made in the Writ Petition, I hold that the petitioner's submissions
relating to migration to general line cannot be considered in the Writ
Petition.
9. Now coming to the claim of parity with Paulraj is concerned, I am
unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, as there is no enabling Rule which entitles the petitioner
to claim the benefit which accrued by virtue of serving the specialized
service in a different compartment altogether. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel, if only the general right of seniority which is
deprived of by being posted in special category is affected, then the person
was given the right to migrate to general category, claiming the original
seniority by virtue of Rule 24 (f) in the Rules which is not the case of the
petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Therefore, no exception can be taken for the impugned order
rejecting the representation of the petitioner and therefore, the Writ Petition
is without merit and therefore it is dismissed. No Costs.
13.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police XI) Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai - 4.
3.The Addl. Director General of Police,
Armed Police,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
4. The Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
ab
W.P.No.24915 of 2010
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
