Madras High Court
T.Veemaraj vs The Director General Of Police/ on 29 January, 2025
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 06.11.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.3256 & 6783 of 2021
In W.P.No.2902 of 2021
T.Veemaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police/
Head of Police Force,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him
in RC No.557909/GB-2(1)/2020 dated 10.11.2020 and to quash the
same and further direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the
petitioner in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I
Page Nos.1/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
taking into consideration the accelerated promotion granted to the
petitioner and promote him as Additional Superintendent of Police,
Category-I at par with his juniors and grant him all consequential
service and monetary benefits.
In W.P.No.6164 of 2021
M.Vetrivelu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police/
Head of Police Force,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him
in RC No.582264/GB-2(1)/2020 dated 27.02.2021 and to quash the
same and further direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the
petitioner in the rank of Inspector of Police, taking into consideration
the accelerated promotion granted to the petitioner and promote him
as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I at par with his juniors
and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
Page Nos.2/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel
in both W.Ps. for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent : Mr.Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, AGP
Nos.1 & 2 in both W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent
in RC No.557909/GB-2(1)/2020 dated 10.11.2020 and
R.C.No.582264/GB-2(1)/2020 dated 27.01.2021, the present Writ
Petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein. Consequently,
seeking a direction to the respondents to revise the petitioners'
seniority in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I
and Inspector of Police respectively, taking into consideration of the
accelerated promotion granted to them and promote them as
Additional Superintendent of Police, Category-I and Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Category-I at par with their juniors and grant
them all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. Heard Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional
Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
3. The germane facts which leads to the filing of the present
cases are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner/Veemaraj joined the service as Grade II
Police Constable in 1988 and thereafter selected as SI of Police and
promoted as Inspector of Police and was further promoted as Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Category I based on accelerated promotion
by the Government in G.O. Ms No.959 Home (Pol. IV A) dated
08.11.2013 and assumed office on 13.11.2013 due to administrative
delay whereas the petitioner/Vetrivelu who was a graduate joined the
service as a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2008.
3.2. In the year 2013, the petitioners being the Inspector of
Police and Sub Inspector of Police respectively along with 18 others
were assigned with a special task headed by Mr.Narendrapal Singh,
IPS, for nabbing the Muslim Fundamentalists namely, Police
Fakrudeen, Bilal Malik and Panna Ismail. Based on reliable
information, on 05.10.2013, under the guidance of one Mr.Anbu, IPS,
the special team including the petitioners after a long struggle for
nearly 10 hours, arrested the muslim terror fundamentalists in which
one Inspector by name Lakshmanan was attacked with weapons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
causing severe injuries to him and in consequent to that, one of the
fundamentalists by name, Panna Ismail sustained bullet injuries and
thus, they successfully completed the operation without any loss of life
and property besides recovering 70 kgs of high explosives, ammunition
and raw materials for preparing explosives from the said house. Due
to the courageous act of the team risking their lives, extensive
damages to properties, as well as for loss to many lives nearly 5000
persons, were prevented.
3.3. Considering their effective and risky successful operation,
the Director General of Police (DGP) recommended to grant
accelerated promotion to all the team members, who were in the
operation on 05.10.2013 at Puttur, Andhra Pradesh by creating
supernumerary posts. On the proposal of the DGP through his letters
dated 30.10.2013 and 06.07.2013, a Committee headed by three
officials were formed. The Accelerated Promotion Committee
considered the recommendations of the DGP, assessed the individual
bravery and valour acts of the police personnels participated in the
said operation and being satisfied with their extraordinary bravery and
valour acts, recommended the Government vide G.O.Ms No.820,
Home Police-IA Department, dated 08.10.2013 for granting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
accelerated promotion. In view of the recommendations made by the
Committee, the petitioners and others were granted accelerated
promotion by creating supernumerary posts through G.O.(Ms) No.959,
Home Police-1A Department, dated 08.11.2013. Hence, the petitioners
herein were promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I
and Inspector of Police and they assumed office on 13.11.2013 at
District Crime Branch II, Villupuram and on 11.11.2013 respectively.
However, the petitioners after attained sufficient seniority, their names
were deferred for the promotional post of Additional Superintendent of
Police Category I and Deputy Superintendent of Police on the ground
that their seniorities were not fixed. Hence, the petitioners made a
detailed representations dated 07.08.2020 to the respondents for
grant of promotion by placing their seniority from the date of assuming
office as DSP and Inspector of Police respectively. But the same were
rejected by the first and second respondent through the impugned
orders dated 10.11.2020 and 27.02.2021 respectively.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have approached
this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners herein were part of the special team headed by
Mr.Narendrapal Singh to perform the work of nabbing the muslim
fundamentalists in the year 2013 and on their task on 05.10.2013, the
special operation team headed by one Mr.Anbu, IPS., struggling for
nearly 10 hours, by their brave efforts and gallantry acts, arrested the
terror muslim fundamentalists without any loss to lives and properties.
He submitted that the team had risked their lives and in the said task,
one Inspector was attacked with weapons and consequent to that, the
team fired against the fundamentalists and arrested them after a great
struggle for 10 hours and also recovered 70 kgs of high explosives,
ammunition and raw materials pertaining to explosives from the said
place.
6. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel pointed out that the
petitioners have rescued the lives of more than 5000 people by
recovering the explosives and prevented huge loss to lives and
properties including them as the explosives found might have caused
extensive damage to the property around 1 Km area. In view of their
risky and diligent work, the DGP sent proposal for grant of accelerated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
promotion to the team personnels considering their risky successful
task and the Accelerated Promotion Committee also assessed their
individual valour and gallant acts, recommended the Government
which was accepted and accelerated promotion were granted through
G.O.Ms No.959 dated 08.11.2013, by creating supernumerary posts
for the said police personnels. The petitioners herein were promoted as
DSP and Inspector of Police and they assumed office on 13.11.2013
and 11.11.2013 respectively. Unfortunately, thereafter the petitioners
were not considered for further promotion from the year panel 2018-
2019 on the ground that their seniority were not fixed.
7. He further contended that the petitioners made a detailed
representations dated 07.08.2020 redressing their grievance to the
respondents for their further promotion but the first and second
respondent without considering their diligent and efficient work,
rejected their claim through impugned orders dated 10.11.2020 and
27.02.2021 respectively.
8. At this point of time, the learned Senior counsel submitted
that the petitioner/Veemaraj has been awarded Best Officer's Award
by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chief Ministers medal and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
Presidential award for his best performance and the
petitioner/Vetrivelu has received more than 200 rewards and has no
adverse remarks.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel drew
that attention of this Court that petitioners' seniority have not been
fixed though similarly placed persons such as Mr.Mohan, Mr.Thillai
Natarajan and Mr.Chandrasekaran, who have been granted accelerated
seniority on the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.8886 & 14366 of
2008; W.P.No.17312 of 2008 and W.P.Nos.10290 & 12725 of 2009
dated 30.10.2009. Furthermore, the learned Senior counsel cited yet
another decision of this Court in the case of Raja Rajan Vs. The
Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police II)
Department, Chennai in W.P.Nos.3994& 28625 of 2018. The
relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order reads as follows:
“6.Subsequent to the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007, three Police
Officers viz., K.Mohan, M.Thillai Natarajan and
M.Chandrasekar who were granted accelerated
promotion originally in respect of individual
courageous acts, not associated with the STF,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
had challenged the denial of accelerated seniority
vide G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 03.10.2007. This
Court vide individual orders dated 30.10.2009 in
W.P.No.17312 of 2008, W.P.No.8886 of 2008 &
W.P.No.10290 of 2009 allowed the Writ Petitions
filed by those Police Officers, wherein the learned
Judge of this Court clearly held that the denial of
accelerated seniority as per the above said G.O.
cannot be made applicable to the writ petitioners
therein, since the Government has consciously
made individual assessment of those writ
petitioners and it was not an en masse
accelerated promotion as given to STF Personnel.
It appears that the Government accepted the
judgment of the learned Judge and implemented
the same and granted accelerated promotion for
the second time to those writ petitioners.
...
8.Shri K.Venkatramani, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would
submit that as far as the pending litigations
before this Court and before Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, they stand on a different footing
as the claim of the petitioner herein is completely
different and it was fully covered by the decisions
of this Court dated 30.10.2009 in the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
mentioned three writ petitions, which decisions
were implemented by the Government itself in
respect of those three individuals viz., K.Mohan,
M.Thillai Natarajan & M.Chandrasekar.
9.The learned Senior counsel would
straight away draw the attention of this Court to
the observations made by the learned Judge of
this Court in his order dated 30.10.2009 in
respect of three individual writ petitioners and
would draw specific reference to the concluding
paragraphs commencing from 4.2 to 7 which
read as under;
“4.2. In the case of STF men who
have been involved in the Veerappan's case,
individual assessment of their act of bravery in
eliminating the forest brigand was not made by
the Government and the recommendation made
by the Director General of Police and the Board
which was constituted for the said purpose has
not assessed the individual STF men pertaining
to their part in eliminating the said Veerappan.
But the case of the petitioner does not stand in
the said position.
4.3. When individual assessment was
made on the petitioner and the petitioner was
granted accelerated promotion, the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
may not be justified in passing G.O.Ms.No.1396
dated 3.10.2007 in equating the petitioner along
with the STF men referred to above. In the said
G.O though it was passed in reference to the STF
men referred to above, in the last para of the
said G.O there is also a reference about
accelerated promotion given to others. The same
is extracted here under:-
"The concept indicated in para 3(i) above is
also applicable to the persons, who have been
awarded accelerated promotion in individual
orders from time to time to the extent it applies
to future promotion. The above principle will
apply also to cases of accelerated promotion to
be considered in future."
5. A uniform stand cannot be taken
by the Government in respect of the STF men
referred to above and the case of the individual
like the petitioner who have been accorded
accelerated promotion for their acts of bravery.
Further, in G.O.Ms.No.1252 dated 29.10.2004, it
was referred that one stage of promotion were
given to them but in respect of the accelerated
promotion given to the petitioner in
G.O.Ms.No.1246 dated 20.08.2007, such
reference was not made.
6.It is not denied by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
Government, that the petitioner was accorded
accelerated promotion taking into consideration,
the guidelines framed in G.O.Ms.No.468,
followed by High Level Committed constituted for
such purpose.
7.Considering the above facts and
circumstances, I am of the considered view that
the refusal to accord promotion to the petitioner
to the post of Superintendent of Police citing
G.O.Ms.No.1396 Home [Pol-1A] Dept dated
3.10.2007 is wholly unjustified. Consequently,
the G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 3.10.2007, so far as
denying promotion to the petitioner is liable to
quashed and accordingly quashed. Consequently,
I direct the respondents to consider including the
name of the petitioner in the panel of promotion,
fit for promotion to the post of Superintendent of
Police from the year, which he is eligible but for
G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 3.10.2007. The said
exercise has to be carried out by the
respondents within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed. However, no order as to costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
10.Likewise, the learned Judge of this
Court has made similar observations in other two
writ petitions, in paragraph 19 and in paragraphs
7 & 8 respectively, which are also extracted
hereunder:
“19.The discussion made above will
amply establish that G.O.Ms.No.1396 Home
(Pol.1A) Department dated 03.10.2007
amending 5e of the original Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.1252 Home (Pol.VIII) Department
dated 29.10.2004 may not have any relevance
to the case of the petitioner. Hence ignoring the
said Government Order as far as the petitioner is
concerned, the respondents are bound to
promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Further the non-
inclusion of the petitioner in the panel of
Inspector of Police fit for appointment to the post
of Deputy Superintendent of Police as per the
order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.658
Home (Police 2) Department dated 10.06.2008 is
liable to be quashed sofar as non-inclusion of the
petitioner alone is concerned and consequently, I
direct the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the
said list after Sl.No.36 and above Sl.No.37 with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
all consequential benefits. The said exercise has
to be carried out by the respondents within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.”
7.When the petitioner was elevated
to the post of the Inspector of Police from the
post of Sub Inspector of Police, considering his
act of bravery and such promotion was accorded
through G.O dated 1.07.1999, relaxing the
relevant rules and for the regular post without
creating supernumerary posts, when his seniority
was fixed on 07.03.2001 placing him in Serial
No.110 A and the same was reaffirmed by the
proceedings of the Director General of Police
dated 25.10.2005, there is no rhyme or reason
to refuse further promotion to him as DSP. His
case cannot be compared with the other
promotions granted to STF men who were
accorded accelerated promotion for wiping out
the forest brigand Veerappan, since in those
cases individual acts of bravery of each and
every individual who got such accelerated
promotion was not considered by the Director
General of Police, when he sent their names
recommending such accelerated promotion and
also the accelerated promotion board has not
considered their individual bravery, when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
recommending their names to the Government
for granting accelerated promotion. Further,
supernumerary posts were created for granting
them accelerated promotion. But, in the case on
hand, as stated already petitioner's act of
bravery was considered isolatedly and he had
been accorded promotion relaxing Rules and also
for the regular post. His seniority was also fixed
as early as 07.03.2001 and re-affirmed on
25.10.2005. The files produced before me was
perused by me. It reveals that the Collector had
also appreciated the act of bravery of the
petitioner in that incident and recommended for
accelerated promotion
8.In view of the above stated
position, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner
is justified in his claim that he shall be elevated
to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police,
which has to be considered within six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
...
20.By way of reply, the learned Senior
counsel Mr.K.Venkatramani, appearing for the
petitioner would submit that even the Division
Bench of this Court passed a detailed order,
upholding the G.O.Ms.No.1396, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
03.10.2007 and dismissing the claim of for
accelerated seniority as observed in paragraph
64 of the judgment, which reads as under:
“64.As discussed earlier, accelerated
promotion was not a regular promotion; but
given with a view to encourage the Officers, who
were part of Special Task Force. Accelerated
promotion was given to all the persons who
joined the Special Task Force irrespective of their
individual role played by Special Task Force.
Certainly it was not based on appraisal of
individual's merit and ability and on the other
hand it was conferred en masse of those
persons, who joined Special Task Force. When
there was no appraisal of individual's merit and
ability, accelerated promotion cannot be given
with the accelerated seniority so as to benefit the
accelerated promotees to steal a march over all
the regularly appointed officers/personnel.”
21.From the above, it could be seen that
the accelerated promotion was given
mechanically without assessment of the
individual merit and participation and therefore,
the learned Division Bench has given a leeway to
the Government to carve out an exception and
grant further benefit of seniority on the basis
individual merit. Therefore, the order passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
the Division Bench of this Court dated
05.04.2013 in W.A.Nos.849 to 854 of 2010 is not
opposed to the claim made by the petitioner
herein and if the claim is granted by this Court,
the same is not in violation of the order passed
by the learned single Judge of this Court.
...
24.As rightly contended by the learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that as far as the petitioner herein is
concerned, the Government was very conscious
on the individual merit of the petitioner herein
and therefore recommended his name for grant
of Presidential Gallantry Award. On the basis of
the recommendation of the Government, the
petitioner was granted gallantry award by His
Excellency, The President of India for his
exemplary, meritorious, courageous act and
service. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot
be treated as one of the Personnel merely
associated with the STF and his interest cannot
be clubbed along with hundreds of other Police
Personnel who might have had passive
participation in the Special Task Force operation.
As far as the petitioner herein is concerned, the
facts would undoubtedly disclose that his role in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
the Special Task Force, at the crucial time when
a Forest Brigand was nabbed and killed, was
direct and exemplary and therefore the
Government itself has notified 7 Police Personnel
in the Gazette Notification who were part of the
actual Task Force in its operation called
“Cucoon”. Therefore, it is very unfair that the
Government can be allowed to paint every claim
of STF Personnel with the same brush. Once the
Government itself has appreciated the exemplary
courage exhibited by the petitioner herein along
with few other Officers, such courageous act of
the petitioner cannot be arrayed along with en
masse claim of several hundreds of Police
Personnel associated with the Task Force in
normal line of their duty. Unless such exception
is carved out in the matter of conformation of
benefits on such Personnel, the courageous act
of such Personnel like the petitioner herein will
go unnoticed and will pale into insignificance over
a period of time. Therefore, the claim of the
petitioner cannot be clubbed along with general
claim for accidental promotion of hundreds of
Personnel attached with the Special Task Force
over a period of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
25.In the backdrop of above narrative, if
one looks at the claim of the petitioner herein,
this Court has to come to the irresistible
conclusion that no matter the number of
litigations pending on the issue before this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
claim herein cannot be squarely brought within
the ambit of decisions rendered by the learned
single Judge of this Court dated 30.10.2009 in
W.P.Nos.17132, 8886 of 2008 & 10290 of 2009.
In those cases, the learned Judge has made a
succinct observation that the denial of
accelerated seniority contemplated under
G.O.Ms.No.1396 dated 30.10.2007 cannot be
made applicable since there was an individual
assessment of merit and it was not an en masse
promotion as granted to STF Personnel. Such
finding of the learned Judge would squarely hold
good for this petitioner as well since this Court
has to make a clear distinction between en
masse claim and a individual claim. ...
...
27. ... his claim should not be identified
with the en masse claim of hundreds of other
personnel attached to STF and it should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
identified as a special case where the petitioner
was individually assessed as an exemplary police
personnel and was recommended for the
Presidential Medal and was also awarded with
the said Medal. In which event, the Government
ought to have placed the claim of the petitioner
on a distinct pedestal than clubbing it with
hundred others. It is very unfortunate that such
exhibition of exemplary courage and valor has
not invited due appreciation at the hands of the
Government, but on the other hand, the
petitioner was driven to litigation before this
Court to secure the ends of justice. This Court is
of the view that on its own the Government
ought to have extended the benefit to the
petitioner herein in terms of its own decision
taken in implementing the orders of this Court
dated 30.10.2009 in the aforementioned three
writ petitions.
28.In fact, in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents and also in the course
of the oral submissions made by the learned
Special Government Pleader, the fact that the
petitioner's participation in the Task Force in
regard to his distinguished service in the Special
Task Force has not been disputed and in fact, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
Government cannot dispute at all in the face of
the admitted facts. Therefore, it is needless to
mention that the petitioner's claim cannot be
pitchforked into the larger group claim thereby
effacing the individual exemplary act by making
it inconspicuous, resulting in denial of fair and
just treatment to the petitioner. The claim
therefore, ought to have been clearly identified
as different as that of the others and the benefit
of accelerated seniority ought to have been
extended to the petitioner. Only on such grant of
benefit, the petitioner act would be recognized as
being exemplary and inspirational for the Police
Department. Unfortunately, the Government has
simply washed its hands without appreciating the
claim of the petitioner in proper perspective on
the clichéd understanding that the litigations are
pending on the issues before this Court and
before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Therefore, this Court is unable to countenance
the rejection of petitioner's claim by the
Government.
29.For the above said reasons, Writ
Petition in W.P.No.3994 of 2018 is allowed and
the Government Order in G.O.(D) No.488 Home
(Pol.II) Department dated 31.05.2016 is hereby
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
set aside and consequently there shall be a
direction to the respondents to grant seniority to
the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy
Superintendent of Police on 30.10.2004 in
furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.1252, Home (Pol.VIII)
Department, dated 29.10.2004 based on the
Presidential Gallantry Award granted to him by
His Excellency the President of India for his
courageous act and also grant him further
promotion on that basis to the higher post of
Superintendent of Police. The respondents are
directed to effect the consequential promotion to
the petitioner to the next higher posts on the
basis of re-fixed seniority in the cadre of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and grant him all
attendant benefits on such promotion. The
respondents are directed to pass appropriate
orders in this regard within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
Order. The other connected writ petition in
W.P.No.28625 of 2018 shall stand disposed of on
the above terms. No costs. Consequently,
connected WMPs are closed.”
10. Thus summing up his arguments, the learned Senior counsel
submitted that the case of the petitioners ought to have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
considered on their individual bravery and gallant acts and their
awards and rewards given and prayed this Court to allow the Writ
Petitions.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents first outlined the historical
background of the Government’s Orders and also asserted the legality
and procedural correctness of the Government’s actions and rules
concerning accelerated promotions within the Tamil Nadu Police
Service. He traced the origins of the accelerated promotion system to
the acts of bravery and extraordinary service, such as operations of
Special Task Force against forest brigand Veerappan and similar high-
risk assignments. These promotions, granted as a reward for individual
merit, were designed to elevate the personnel one rank higher without
undermining the seniority of those promoted through regular channels.
This principle was reaffirmed in the 2007 order, which explicitly stated
that accelerated promotions are for one stage only and would not
extend to consequential seniority in the promoted or feeder categories.
He argued that this framework applies uniformly to all cases of
accelerated promotions granted after the issuance of the 2007 order
and is reinforced by subsequent judicial pronouncements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
12. He further argued that the central argument revolves around
the consistent application of seniority principles as established in
G.O.(Ms). No.1396, dated 03.10.2007. The Government, in this order,
clarified that accelerated promotions granted to police personnel would
not confer consequential seniority in the promoted category. Instead,
the seniority of such officers would continue to be governed by their
inter-se position in the feeder grade as the same was introduced to
maintain fairness and equity, was later upheld by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2013 in W.A.Nos.849
to 854 of 2010 & batch etc., which validated the deletion of para
no.5(e) in G.O.(Ms) No.1252 and G.O.(Ms) No.1346 of 2004.
13. He contended that by recognizing ambiguities in the
implementation of these principles stated in G.O.Ms Nos.1252 and
1346 of 2004, the Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.1396 in 2007.
Under the revised order, seniority between accelerated promotees and
general promotees in the promoted category was to be determined
based on their panel position in the feeder grade. The accelerated
promotion, as emphasized, would not confer accelerated consequential
seniority. This principle applied to both existing and future cases of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
accelerated promotions. This order also explicitly established that
accelerated promotions were limited to one stage and would not grant
consequential seniority. The concept of seniority was tied to the
officers' positions in their feeder category. This foundational principle
applied uniformly to all future accelerated promotions, ensuring clarity
and consistency.
14. He highlighted that the judicial validation of the aforesaid
Government orders and submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court, in its landmark judgment dated 05.04.2013, upheld the
Government’s power to revise earlier orders, deleting paragraph 5(e)
from the original G.O.s of 2004 and restoring the seniority principles
by issuing G.O.(Ms) No.1396. The Court affirmed that accelerated
promotions could not disrupt the inter-se seniority of officers, stating
that such promotions, granted outside the purview of normal rules, did
not carry consequential seniority advantages or benefits. This
judgment fortified the Government's position, rendering G.O.(Ms) No.
1396 as a binding legal framework for determining seniority and
thereby rejecting any claims to accelerated consequential seniority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
15. He further contended that subsequent Government Orders,
such as G.O.(Ms) No. 550 of 2013 attempted to introduce a new rule
under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Police Service Special Rules, which
allowed accelerated promotees to gain consequential seniority, were
quashed by this Court. This order was met with significant resistance,
leading to writ petitions by affected officers. In its common order dated
02.12.2020, the Court declared G.O.(Ms) No. 550 as unconstitutional
and illegal, reinforcing the earlier principles of seniority fixation. The
judgment noted that the Government’s attempt to override settled
principles was legally untenable and reaffirmed that seniority must
align with inter-se rankings in the feeder category.
16. While continuing his submissions, he stated that to comply
with the Court's earlier decision, the Government issued G.O.(Ms)
No.118 in 2023 amending Rule 11(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Service
Special Rules, aligning the rules with judicial directives. This
amendment reinstated the principle that accelerated promotions do not
confer consequential seniority and applied retroactively from
19.03.1996. The 2023 order categorically stated that inter-se seniority
between accelerated and general promotees in the promoted category
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
would continue to follow their feeder grade seniority and accelerated
promotions would not bestow any consequential seniority advantages.
This amendment, unchallenged in Court, has attained finality and
forms the basis of the respondents’ arguments. The respondents
argued that this reinforces the legal and administrative position against
granting consequential seniority to accelerated promotees, including
the petitioners. In addressing the specific cases of the petitioners,
including T. Veemaraj and M. Vetrivelu, he contended that their claims
for consequential seniority lack merit as both the petitioners were
granted accelerated promotions under orders issued after G.O.(Ms)
No.1396, which explicitly clarified the non-conferment of consequential
seniority for accelerated promotions. They argued that this distinction
sets the petitioners apart from earlier cases, such as those of officers
like M.Thillai Natarajan and C. Ilango, whose accelerated promotions
and consequential seniority were determined before 2007 order and
were adjudicated under different rules. These cases are not
comparable, as the latter officers' promotions were not governed by
the principles introduced in G.O.(Ms) No.1396. He submitted that
Thillai Natarajan received accelerated promotion in 1997 and his
seniority was fixed before the principles of G.O.(Ms) No. 1396 came
into effect. Similarly, officers like C. Ilango and K. Mohan were granted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
consequential seniority for acts of bravery in encounters during the
late 1990 and early 2000’s. He argued that these historical cases are
not comparable to the petitioners’ claims, as they pre-date 2007 order
and were not governed by the same legal framework which did not
provide any legal clarity. Their inter-se seniority in the promoted
category would be determined based on their rankings in the feeder
category. Consequently, their claims for consequential seniority are
incompatible with the existing legal framework.
17. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that
the administrative consequences of granting the petitioners’ claims and
by allowing consequential seniority for these petitioners would create a
precedent encouraging similar claims from other officers, which in turn
would lead to a floodgates of litigation, administrative chaos and
significant disruptions in the police forces hierarchy. He stressed that
the current system, rooted in judicially validated government orders,
provides fairness and consistency and any deviation would lead to
administrative complications and numerous fresh litigations. He added
that the petitioners' reliance on comparisons with other officers who
received accelerated promotions and consequential seniority is
misplaced, as these cases arose under different circumstances and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
legal frameworks. Moreover, he pointed out that the Hon'ble Division
Bench’s judgment in 2013 and the High Court’s order in 2020
collectively established a clear and consistent framework for seniority
determination and these judgments affirmed that the Government
acted within its powers and that the principles laid down in G.O.(Ms).
No. 1396 were legally sound.
18. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that
the petitioners’ claims lack merit both legally and administratively. He
emphasized that the current framework established by G.O.(Ms)
No.1396, subsequent Government Orders and judicial decisions and by
ensuring to uphold the principles of fairness, equity and consistency
and dismiss the petitions to avoid setting a precedent that disrupts
administrative stability and undermines the legal framework. He also
asserted that the petitioners' claims are contrary to established legal
principles and would disrupt the uniform application of rules governing
seniority. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
19. Considered the rival submissions made by the respective
learned counsels and also perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
20. This Court after an elaborate and conscious and analytical
perusal of the case views the following facts for consideration:
a)The case of the petitioners herein are not disputed by the
respondents.
b)The petitioners herein have been part of the successful terror
fundamentalists operation which was also undisputed by the
respondents.
c)On the proposal of the DGP through letters dated 30.10.2013
and 06.11.2013, for grant of acceleration promotion to the police
personnels who had done the bravery acts in securing the muslim
fundamentalists by risking their lives, the Committee on accelerated
promotion after scrutinizing the efforts put forth by the said
personnels, made recommendation to the Government for grant of
accelerated promotion, which was also accepted by the Government
and passed Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.820 of dated
08.10.2013 followed by G.O.(Ms) No.959, Home (Pol.1A) Department
dated 08.11.2013 for effective implementation. In effect of the same,
the petitioners have been promoted as DSP and Inspector of Police
respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners have not been listed for
further promotional panel which made them to approach the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
Department by way of representation dated 07.08.2020. The first
respondent passed the impugned orders dated 27.11.2020 and
27.02.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners that as per G.O.(Ms)
No.1396 dated 03.10.2007, seniority has to be fixed in their feeder
category.
21. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the respondents
have highlighted various Government Orders and judgments of this
Court in regard to this issue of accelerated promotion and fixation of
accelerated seniority such as G.O.(Ms) No. 1396 dated 03.10.2010;
W.A.Nos.849 to 854 of 2010 and etc., W.P.Nos.24461 of 2013 and
batch cases. This Court finds that the Government orders and
judgments of this Court all related to Special Task Force (brigand
Veerapan case), especially G.O.(Ms) 1396 dated 03.10.2007 were
passed overriding the G.O.(Ms) Nos.1252 & 1346 of 2004, wherein
accelerated promotion at one stage has been granted to the groupism
task for nearly 900 to 950 police personnels from lower grade to
higher level, dissatisfaction prevailed in this regard by the professional
achievers, as there was no difference in the said G.O., distinguishing
the personnels who had done exceptional acts in the said task.
Considering the same, in that brigand Veerappan case, Cucoon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
professionals who were granted accelerated promotion were conferred
with seniority.
22. Apparently, in the case on hand, it is to be noted that the
said muslim fundamentalists operation was not a groupism task and
moreover, the Committee on accelerated promotion assessed the
individual bravery and gallant acts of the petitioners and had
recommended the Government for grant of accelerated promotion and
the Government after accepting the same, granted accelerated
promotion and G.O.(Ms) No.820 dated 08.10.2013 following the
Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.805 dated 07.10.2013 neither
contemplate nor state that was one stage of promotion and hence, it
cannot be now heard to say by the respondents that accelerated
promotion was given only for one stage and that the petitioners are
not entitled for further promotion. The Government which
implemented the order passed by this Court dated 30.09.2009 in
respect of 3 Police Officers namely, K.Mohan, K.Thillai Natarajan and
M.Chandrasekar who were involved in different courageous acts, in all
fairness, the Government ought to have extended that benefit to these
petitioners also. The Accelerated Promotion Committee had accepted
the exceptional acts/professional achievements and based on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
merits and abilities of the petitioners, have recommended them for
accelerated promotion to the Government. In view of the above
position, there is no rhyme or reason to reject or refuse the further
promotion to them by fixing their seniority from the date of their
joining in the promoted post.
23. In this backdrop, now it is predominant to notice that the
petitioners herein were granted accelerated promotion in the year
2013 and thereafter since their names were not found place in the
promotional panel list from the year 2018, they made representations
in the year 2020 and on rejection of the same, the petitioners herein
approached this Court in the year 2021. While that being so, as on
date several Government Orders were passed in and against the claim
of the petitioners in the interregnum. Taking note of the fact, G.O.(Ms)
No. 1396 dated 03.10.2007 was passed taking into account the STF
case wherein accelerated promotion was granted for one stage and
there was no difference shown for the individual exceptional acts as
the enmass has been granted accelerated promotion and in this
regard, several cases arose and the present G.O.(Ms) No. 118 dated
15.03.2023 was passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
24. After an intricated discussions and in the light of the orders
of this Court as stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion
that G.O.(Ms) No.1396 dated 03.10.2007 may not have any relevance
to the case of the petitioners as highlighted by the respondents and
nevertheless, G.O.(Ms) No.118 dated 15.03.2023 have not been
challenged, it is to be taken into account, the special task of the
petitioners is of the year 2013 and they approached this Court in the
year 2021 and that the Government Orders G.O.(Ms) No.1396 and
G.O.(Ms) No.118 have been passed analysing the STF brigand
Veerappan case, it is not disputed by the respondents that accelerated
promotion committee was formed for assessing the individual bravery
and gallant act of the personnels of the special operational tasks after
STF and in the present case on hand, they have assessed and
Government granted accelerated promotion on the recommendations
of the Committee and therefore, the benefits of accelerated seniority
ought to have been extended to the petitioners. It is unfortunate that
the respondents have simply rejected their claim without recognition of
their gallant act in a proper perspective manner which being
exemplary and inspirational for the police personnels.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
25. It is pertinent to refer to the contentions of the respondents
that the Government has amended rule 11(b) of Tamil Nadu Police
Service Special Rules vide G.O.(Ms) No. 118 dated 15.03.2023 which
was not challenged and has attained its finality and in regard to the
fact that it will be a precedent to several others to seek the same,
however, it is crystal clear that these petitioners have been struggling
their claim from the year 2020 and their bravery acts recognized were
of the year 2013 and their claim were flawless. Therefore, this Court is
unable to countenance the rejection of petitioners' claim by the
respondents. However acceding that G.O.(Ms) No.118 dated
15.03.2023 with retrospective effect from 19.03.1996 was not
challenged, this Court in simpliciter, in the interest of Justice, Equity,
Fair play and Good Conscience comes to the conclusion that the relief
sought for by the petitioners herein may be considered by the
respondents taking into the observations made in this order.
26. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions stand disposed
of. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners herein for further promotion afresh taking into account
their diligent work, awards and rewards, unblemished service and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
valour/gallant acts as special aspects and pass appropriate orders on
its own merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be
completed atleast within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed, if any. There shall be no orders as to costs.
29.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Order: Speaking/Non-Speaking
NCC : Yes/No
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DP
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Home, Prohibition & Excise,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Committee for granting
accelerated promotion to the
Police Personnel
rep. by its Chairman,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
(Head of Police Force),
Law & Order,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.Nos.2902 & 6164 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.3256 & 6783 of 2021
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
