Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Perumal on 4 January, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD).No.890 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD).No.890 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5364 of 2016
1.The 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 Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
5.The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements),
Pension Section - 15,
361, Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 018. .. Appellants/Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.890 of 2016
Vs.
S.Perumal .. Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 26.02.2013 made in W.P.(MD).No.15786 of 2012
on the file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order
passed in W.P.(MD).No.15786 of 2012 dated 26.02.2013.
2. This is an issue which has been under consideration on various
occasions before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has a
checkered history. To put it short, in the year 1997, due to stagnation in the
cadre in the Police Department, G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Pol-V) Department
dated 03.06.1997, was issued, wherein, a career prospect promotion was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
implemented to the effect that Police Constables with ten years of service
were upgraded as Grade I Police Constables and after five years of service
as Grade I Police Constable, upgraded as Head Constable. A person with
ten years of service as Head Constable was upgraded as Special Sub
Inspector of Police. While there were conflicting judgments interpreting the
said Government Order, the matter was referred to larger Bench.
3. Before that, the Writ Petition, which was preferred by
S.Perumal/the respondent herein, came up for consideration and following
the judgments rendered in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.11544 to
11550 of 2012 dated 28.06.2012, another batch of Writ Petitions of similar
nature and the subsequent Government Order passed by the State in
G.O.Ms.No.15, Home (Pol-V) Department, dated 07.01.2010, this Court
allowed the Writ Petition by giving notional promotion to the
respondent/writ petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police, taking note of
the years of service put in by him.
4. In the present case, the respondent joined as Police Constable
Grade II on 01.10.1970. He voluntarily retired from service on 31.05.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
During his tenure, he was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable on
09.03.1993 and further upgraded as Head Constable on 08.01.1998.
Claiming that the respondent has put in totally 36 years of service, he
sought for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of
his 25 years of service. This was accepted by the learned Single Judge and
the Writ Petition was allowed.
5. The said order was challenged on the ground that the Government
Order providing career prospects and upgradation of posts on the length of
service consist of twin conditions. One, the person must have completed 25
years of service, out of which, the last 10 years of service must be as Head
Constable. Whereas, in the present case, S.Perumal/the writ petitioner, had
not completed 10 years of service as Head Constable and therefore, he is not
entitled for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector. However, this contention
was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the present Writ
Appeal was preferred by the State.
6. Pending the appeal, the issue was referred to a larger Bench and the
three Judges Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.02.2022 passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 etc., batch, had clarified the legal position in the
following terms:
''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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
its proper perspective and the judgment in V.Samy case is
hereby overruled”. ''
7. In the light of the decision rendered by the larger Bench of this
Court, this Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned
order passed in W.P.(MD).No.15786 of 2012 dated 26.02.2013 is quashed
and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that
pertaining to the other batch of Writ Petitions, Special Leave Petitions are
pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.6986 to 6996 of 2018. If it
is so and if any order or observation by the Supreme Court, which is
contrary to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, is rendered, then the
respondent shall work out his remedy in accordance with the order passed in
the pending Special Leave Petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
(G.J.,J.) (C.K.,J.)
04.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
Lm
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
