A.Thirumurugan vs The Director General Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 8163 Mad

                                                                             W.P(MD)No.18802 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.18802 of 2016

                A.Thirumurugan                                             ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs

                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.                                    ... Respondents

                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give the
                notional promotion with monetary benefits equal to the post of Inspector of
                Police to the petitioner on par with his batch-mates on the basis of the
                petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2016.


                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.P.Thangam
                                  For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan
                                                    Additional Government Pleader


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/5
                                                                               W.P(MD)No.18802 of 2016



                                                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he should have been made as

Inspector of Police since he has entered into the Department on

01.04.1981. 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P(MD)No.18802 of 2016

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

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

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

W.P(MD)No.18802 of 2016

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. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 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.18802 of 2016

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

CM

W.P(MD)No.18802 of 2016

12.07.2023

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