Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Karunakaran on 12 October, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017 and
CMP(MD)No.5669 of 2017
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Home Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District. ... Appellants/Respondents
vs.
1.M.Karunakaran
2.S.Moorthy ... Respondents/Petitioners
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order, dated 26.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.3007 of 2011 on the file
of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.A.Ragavan
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
Questioning the order of the learned Judge passed in the Writ
Petition, directing the appellants to grant deemed upgradation/promotion to
the respondents / writ petitioners, to the post of Special Sub Inspector of
Police on completion of 25 years of service, irrespective of their transfer to
other wing or District, and pay consequential benefits to them, the present
writ appeal came to be filed by the appellants / police department.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, who jointly
submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by a decision of the Full
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
Bench rendered in W.A.No.3748 of 2019 and Rev.(MD)No.99 of 2014
on 04.02.2022, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others v.
C.Srinivasan, wherein, it was categorically held that 'there is no question
of deemed upgradation or deemed promotion and the benefit can be
extended only on completion of qualifying service in each level/rank'; and
therefore, the writ appeal will have to be allowed by setting aside the order
impugned herein.
3. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench, it
could be seen that taking note of the conflicting judgments of co-equal
benches to the effect that the later Division Bench in the Principal
Secretary to Government v. V.Ramachandran and others in Review
Application Nos.70 to 79 etc. of 2015 and batch, through judgment
dated 22.03.2017, had disagreed with the earlier judgment of the Division
Bench in the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Home
Secretary v. V.Samy and others in WA.(MD)No.1506 of 2011 etc.
batch through judgment dated 17.06.2013, the First Bench of this
court referred those writ appeal and review application viz., WA No.3748 of
2019 and Rev.(MD)No.99 of 2014 to the Full Bench for an authoritative
pronouncement. Accordingly, the Full Bench answered the questions framed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
therein, through order dated 04.02.2022, the relevant passage of which can
be usefully extracted below:
“38. A careful reading of the Government orders
clearly brings out the fact that there is no scope for any deemed
upgradation. The G.Os. makes it abundantly clear that the
concerned Police Constable or Head Constable, as the case may
be, should have held the relevant post for a fixed period of time
in order to claim for upgradation. If the police personnel were
aggrieved by such a stipulation, they ought to have challenged
the Government Orders. No one has chosen to challenge the
G.Os. and an attempt is being made to twist the G.Os. to suit
their requirement. This Court has to necessarily understand the
G.Os. in the plain language used in those G.Os. and see if the
concerned police personnel is satisfying the requirement. When
a benefit is conferred, the requirements to get such a benefit
must be satisfied. There is no scope for a deemed satisfaction
and what is expected is the actual satisfaction of the
requirements. The concerned police personnel want these G.Os.
to be implemented in such a way that upon completing a fixed
period namely 25 years of overall service, they would get
upgradation as Grade I Constable automatically and thereafter,
as Head constables automatically and ultimately as SSI of Police
also automatically. There is no indication in the G.Os. for such
automatic or deemed upgradation.
39. The Division Bench in V. Samy case at paragraph 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
of the order has given a finding as if the actual service of 5
years (it should have been 10 years) as Head Constable is, not
required for, upgradation as SSI of Police. This finding of the
Division bench runs completely contrary to the mandatory
requirement found in G.O.Ms. No. 937, dated 21.7.1998 - At
paragraph 4 of the concerned G.O., completion of, 10 years
service as Head Constable is made mandatory, to be considered
for upgradation to the post of SSI of Police. In view of the same,
the finding given by the Division Bench in V. Samy case which
formed the basis for granting the remedy, is not correct.
40. The finding of the later Division Bench in V.
Ramachandran case to the effect that 10 years of qualifying
service in the rank of Head Constable out of the total service of
25 years to be considered for the upgradation to the post of SSI
of Police is the correct view.
41. For the sake of clarity, we hold that the benefit of
upgradation to the next level of promotion can be granted only
by taking into account the completion of the qualifying service in
each level of rank as prescribed in the above G.Os. There is no
scope for any deemed upgradation or deemed promotion to the
next level/rank and such an interpretation of the G.Os. will
cause violence to the plain language that has been used in those
G.Os. Every upgradation involves financial implications and the
sanction is accorded by the Finance Department as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
terms of the G.O. by anticipating the exact increase in the
expenditure by virtue of the upgradation/promotion. If such
deemed upgradation or deemed promotion is read into the
G.Os., it will not only go beyond the scope of G.Os., but also will
end up in granting the benefit to those persons who are not
covered under the Government order. The direct consequence
will be that there will be a huge outflow of expenditure than
what was expected through the beneficial scheme and it will put
a lot of strain in the State's exchequer.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
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 dealt with the Government
orders in its proper perspective and the judgment in
V.Samy case is hereby overruled.”
4. In view of the authoritative Judgment pronounced by the Full
Bench that the decision laid in V.Ramachandra case (supra) has been
upheld, this Court is of the opinion that there is no question of deemed
upgradation or deemed promotion and such benefit can necessarily be
extended only on completion of the qualifying service.
5. In such perspective of the matter, the order of the learned
Judge in the writ petition, granting deemed upgradation/promotion will have
to be interfered with by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners also conceded with
the answers given by the Full Bench and submitted that they have no case
in this Writ Appeal.
7. Therefore, this Writ Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the
order passed by the learned Judge in the Writ Petition. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(J.N.B.,J.) & (N.A.V.,J.)
12.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
PJL
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Home Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PJL
W.A.(MD)No.816 of 2017
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
