Madras High Court
G.Lakshmi Kanthan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 July, 2025
2025:MHC:1688
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 11.07.2025
Pronounced On : 18.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.13272 to 13275 of 2016
G.Lakshmi Kanthan
S/o. A.Govindarajan,
No. 9, Rajam Nagar II-nd Street,
Kovalan Nagar,
Madurai District. ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.l8434 of 2016
M.Balakrishnan,
S/o. Marichamy,
No.7, Maniraj Bhavanam,
N.G.O.Nagar,
Thirumangalam - 625 706,
Madurai District. ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 18435 of 2016
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police/Director,
Fire & Rescue Services,
Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. ...Respondents in both the Writ Petitions
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
PRAYER in both W.P.s:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-1 and in
Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-2 respectively dated 06.07.2016 on the file
of respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the Rank of Station Officer
(Transport) with effect from 14.05.2012 within the time stipulated by this
Court with consequential benefits from the date of the Government Order
G.O. (Ms.) No. 352 dated 14.05.2012 and pass such further or other
orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13272 & 13274 of 2016:
To dispense with the production of the original copy the Impugned
Order in Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-l and Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-2
respectively dated 06.07.2016 on the file of respondent No.2 for the
present and thus render justice.
PRAYER IN W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13273 & 13275 of 2016:
To pass an order of interim stay of operation of all further
proceedings of the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-l and
in Na.Ka.No.24200/Aa3/2013-2 respectively dated 06.07.2016 on the file
of respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus
render Justice.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
(In both Writ Petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthick
for M/s.T. Lajapathy Roy Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The petitioners in both writ petitions are retired Driver Mechanics
in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department. They challenge
the impugned orders dated 06.07.2016 rejecting their representations for
promotion to the post of Station Officer (Transport), and seek a direction
to grant such promotion with effect from 14.05.2012 pursuant to G.O.
(Ms.)No. 352, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 14.05.2012,
together with all consequential benefits.
3. Both petitioners were originally appointed as Firemen on
29.12.1980. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 18434 of 2016 was
subsequently promoted as Driver Mechanic on 16.05.2012 and retired on
30.09.2013. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 18435 of 2016 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
promoted as Driver Mechanic on 31.03.2012 and retired on 30.06.2012.
Their claim is rooted in G.O. Ms. No. 352, which upgraded 165 posts of
Driver Mechanic to Station Officer (Transport) to address cadre
stagnation.
4. The petitioners contend that under the terms of the Government
Order, promotions were to be considered on the basis of seniority
reckoned from the initial appointment as Fireman. They allege that the
Department, in disregard of this principle, drew the promotion panel based
on seniority among Driver Mechanics alone, which excluded them from
consideration. Their representations to rectify this omission were rejected
on the ground that they had served only for a short duration in the Driver
Mechanic post before superannuation, and that others senior to them in
that cadre were pending consideration.
5. The respondents oppose the writ petitions, primarily on five
grounds:
(i) that the petitions were filed nearly three years after the
petitioners retired, and are thus barred by delay and laches;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
(ii) that the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration
when the relevant promotion panel was drawn;
(iii) that seniority had to be assessed within the feeder category of
Driver Mechanics, as per service rules;
(iv) that promotion is not a matter of right and depends on eligibility
and vacancy; and
(v) that retrospective promotion or notional financial benefits post-
retirement are impermissible in the absence of active consideration,
relying on Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512.
6. The principal issue thus arising is whether the petitioners, who
had only recently been promoted as Driver Mechanics and retired within a
year thereafter, were entitled to be considered for promotion to Station
Officer (Transport) solely on the basis of their original appointment as
Fireman, in light of G.O. (Ms.) No. 352 dated 14.05.2012.
7. A close reading of G.O.(Ms.)No. 352 reveals that it was
introduced as a remedial measure to address the long-standing stagnation
in the Driver Mechanic cadre. The order sanctioned the upgradation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
165 posts of Driver Mechanics to Station Officer (Transport) and referred
to the seniority of Firemen only in the context of explaining the systemic
delay in career advancement. Crucially, the G.O. did not expressly amend
the existing service rules, nor did it prescribe a new method for preparing
the promotion panel. The existing rules recognize Driver Mechanic as the
feeder category for the promotional post in question.
8. It is trite law that promotions must be made in accordance with
the rules in force at the relevant time. The fact that the G.O. aimed to
provide relief does not by itself amount to a substitution of the applicable
seniority criteria under the rules. If Fireman seniority alone were to be
taken as the basis for promotion to Station Officer (Transport) without
reference to the immediate feeder category, it would not only run afoul of
the rules, but also result in considerable administrative uncertainty.
9. Therefore, the respondents’ decision to prepare the promotion
panel on the basis of Driver Mechanic seniority cannot be said to be
arbitrary or illegal. On the date of panel preparation, both petitioners had
only recently entered the Driver Mechanic cadre and were not within the
zone of consideration. No accrued or vested right to promotion had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
crystallized in their favour during service. Their claim for notional
promotion post-retirement thus lacks foundation in law.
10. The legal position on this issue is well settled. In Government
of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3512, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that retrospective or notional
promotions post-retirement cannot be granted unless the employee was
actively under consideration and had been found fit before
superannuation. In the present case, there was no such consideration. The
petitioners did not even complete eligible service as Driver Mechanics
prior to retirement and were never part of the zone of consideration under
the applicable list.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioners’ reliance on
Fireman seniority as a standalone basis for promotion is misconceived.
The G.O. cannot be read in isolation from the governing rules, and in the
absence of a specific statutory override or panel consideration during
service, the petitioners’ claim for post-retirement notional promotion
cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
12. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as devoid of
merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police/Director,
Fire & Rescue Services,
Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-deliver Judgments made in
W.P. (MD) Nos.18434 & 18435 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.13272 to 13275 of 2016
18.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 03:21:04 pm )
