P.Packirisamy (Rtd Warder) vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2023 Latest Caselaw 8162 Mad

                                                                           W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED : 12.07.2023

                                                  CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                         W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016

                1.P.Packirisamy (Rtd Warder)
                2.A.Gandhi (Rtd Warder)
                3.V.Sundaramoorthy (Rtd Warder)
                4.S.Sundaram (Rtd Warder)                                ... Petitioner

                                                     Vs

                1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                Rep.by its Secretary to Home Department,
                Fort St.George,
                Chennai – 600 009.

                2.The Commissioner,
                Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department,
                Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
                K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 78.

                3.The Executive Officer,
                Government Rehabilitation Home,
                Y.Pudhupatti,
                Madurai District.                                      ... Respondents

                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
                peratining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his
                proceedings Na.Ka.No.277/MaENir 1/ 2016 dated 01.06.2016 and quash the
                same and consequently direct the second respondent to revise and regularize the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                                                             W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016


                service seniority and give the further promotion of next cadre as notionally with
                monetary benefits to the petitioner.


                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.P.Thangam
                                  For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
                                                    Special Government Pleader


                                                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they should have been made as

Head Constable after completion of 5 years of service in Constable post.

This issue had already been held against the writ petitioners by the Hon'ble

Full Bench in the decision reported in 2022-1-L.W.984 (The State of

Tamil Nadu & Others Vs C.Srinivasan). Paragraph 42 of the decision of

the Hon'ble Full Bench is 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016

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 the judgment in V.Samy case is hereby overruled”.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that

the decision rendered in V.Ramachandran’s case is the subject matter of

SLP No.6980-6996/2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court is now seized of the

matter.

4. Be that as it may, as on date the decision of the Hon'ble Full

Bench is holding the field. Respectfully following the said decision,

I dismiss the writ petition. I make it clear that in the event of SLP in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016

V.Ramachandran's case being allowed and if any benefit is granted, the

petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal

of his grievance. The competent Authority is obliged to apply the decision

and extend the benefit if such occasion arises. It is needless to mention

that the competent authority will extend such benefit only if the

petitioners' case also falls within its scope and limits. This writ petition is

dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and direction. No costs.

                                                                             12.07.2023

                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes/ No
                CM
                To
                1.The Director General of Police,
                Kamarajar Salai,
                Mylapore,
                Chennai – 600 004.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

CM

W.P(MD)No.18773 of 2016

12.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis