Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Senthatti on 12 October, 2022
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD)No. 5196 of 2016
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
4. The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements)
Pension Section - 15,
361, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 018. : Appellants
Vs
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
R.Senthatti : Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 26.02.2013 passed in W.P(MD)No.223 of 2013 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
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 respondent
/ writ petitioner, to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of
25 years of service, irrespective of his transfer to other wing or District, and pay
consequential benefits to him, the present writ appeal came to be filed by the
appellants / police department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
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
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., W.A.No.3748 of 2019 and Rev.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
(MD)No.99 of 2014 to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
Accordingly, the Full Bench answered the questions framed 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
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.
6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also conceded with the
answers given by the Full Bench and submitted that he has no case in this Writ
Appeal.
7. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi
4. The Accountant General,
(Accounts & Entitlements)
Pension Section - 15,
361, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PJL
W.A(MD)No. 869 of 2016
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
