Madras High Court
Unknown vs A.Rajamani on 1 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.A(MD).No.1250 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1250 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8751 of 2018
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. 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,
Railway Police Office,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.1250 of 2018
4. The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement)
Pension Section-15,
361, Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 008. ..... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
A.Rajamani ....Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.18912 of 2013, dated
26.11.2013.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
JUDGMENT
The respondents in W.P.(MD)No.18912 of 2013 had filed
the present writ appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 26.11.2013, not only in that particular writ petition, but in a
batch of other writ petitions whereby, the learned Single Judge had
allowed the writ petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. W.P.(MD)No.18912 of 2013 had been filed in the nature
of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the appellants to revise the
pension and other retirement benefits by advancing the upgradation as
Grade-I Police Constable/Head Constable on completion of 10/5 years
service and upgrade as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of
25 years service and also upgrade to the higher post notionally, in the
light of the Orders made in W.P.(MD)Nos.11544 to 11550 of 2012 dated
28.06.2012.
3. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition on
26.11.2013. But however, the matter had travelled upto a Full Bench and
a judgment had been rendered by the Full Bench owing to conflict of
decisions. It had been held by the Full Bench that so far as the Police
Department is concerned, there was no question of deemed upgradation
or deemed promotion and that the benefit can be extended only on
completion of qualifying service in each level / rank.
4. The writ petitioner herein, was enlisted as Grade-II Police
Constable on 13.06.1974 and upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13.02.1993 and further upgraded as Police Head Constable on
13.01.1998 and Special Sub Inspector of Police on 01.06.2008. He
retired from service on 28.02.2010. He had filed the writ petition in the
year 2013. He claimed that there must be a deemed upgradation of the
post. But unfortunately the Full Bench had held that there cannot be
deemed upgradation in the Police Department and there is a requirement
that the benefit can be extended only on completion of qualifying service
in each level/rank.
5. Subsequent to the order of the Full Bench, a Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court again in a series of Writ Appeals had
followed the ratio laid down by the Full Bench and in similar matters,
had held as follows in W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019 etc., batch, the State of
Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home
Department, Chennai and two others Vs. C.Srinivasan.
“2. In view of the conflict judgments rendered by
this Court, the First Bench of this Court, vide judgment
dated 20.12.2019, referred the issue to a Larger Bench
to decide as to which judgment has laid down the
correct law in respect of grant of upgradation in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Police Department.
3. When these batch of Writ Appeals are taken
up for hearing, Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Government submitted that the Larger Bench of this
Court, by an order dated 04.02.2022, has already
answered the questions framed by the First Bench of
this Court, which reads as follows:
'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 rist 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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. By relying on the aforesaid answer to the
reference, Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special
Government Pleader submitted that the law is now
well settled and the Larger Bench upheld the
proposition laid down by this Court in
V.Ramachandran case (supra). She further submitted
that in terms of the answer, 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. Hence, the
orders of the learned Single Judge, granting deemed
upgradation/promotion, which are the subject matter
of these Writ Appeals need interference by this Court
and are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners
fairly conceded that the answer given by the Larger
Bench will not inure to the benefit of the Writ
Petitioners and they have no case in these Writ
Appeals.
6. In view of the above submissions and taking
into consideration the ratio laid down by the Larger
Bench of this Court, these Writ Appeals are allowed
and the respective orders of the learned Single Judges
are hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner,
however, stated that a Special Leave Appeal is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. As on date, the law laid down by the Full Bench is
binding on this Court. If any further directions are issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, then the first respondent herein is at liberty to give
necessary representation to consider his case, in accordance with the
directions, if any issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Recording as above, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The
order of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside and the Writ
Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P., J.)
01.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
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,
Railway Police Office,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement)
Pension Section-15,
361, Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
