Madras High Court
G.Jayabal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 20 October, 2022
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
G.Jayabal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 4.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Villupuram District. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. No. A1/001584/2015 dt 7.4.2015
and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
revise the Pension and other Retiral benefits of the petitioner correspondingly
advancing upgradation as Grade I Police Constable / Head Constable on
Completion of 10/5 years and to upgrade as Special Sub Inspector of Police
notionally with effect from the date of completion of 25 years and further
promotion as Inspector of Police, in the light of Government Orders and various
orders of the High Court by extending the benefits given to the similarly placed
candidates.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh
Government Advocate
ORDER
The order dated 07.04.2015 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to
revise the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner correspondingly
advancing upgradation as Grade I Police Constable/Head Constable on
completion of 10/5 years and to upgrade as Special Sub Inspector of Police
notionally with effect from the date of completion of 25 years and further
promotion as Inspector of Police is under challenge in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
2.The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on
03.09.1980 and he was upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1995
and further upgraded as Head Constable during the year 2000. He was promoted
to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2010 and thereafter,
retired from service on 31.05.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
3.The grievance of the petitioner was that he was not granted promotion on
completion 10 years and 5 years respectively to the post of Grade-I Police
Constable and Head Constable. The issue in this regard and the rights of the
employees for such upgradations were considered and decided by the Full Bench
of this Court in batch of cases in W.A.No.3748 of 2019 etc., and the judgment
was delivered on 04.02.2022. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Full
Bench reads as under:
42. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to answer
the second question that has been referred to this Full Bench
hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
the judgment in V.Samy case is hereby overruled”.
4.In view of the judgment of the Full Bench cited supra, the case of the
writ petitioner deserves no further consideration and accordingly, this writ
petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
20.10.2022
Index : Yes (1/5)
Internet : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
ssr
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssr
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
20.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25521 of 2017
(1/5)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
