The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs C.Vellingiri (Retd.Ssi (Hc 461)
2026 Latest Caselaw 116 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 116 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs C.Vellingiri (Retd.Ssi (Hc 461) on 8 January, 2026

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

    2026:MHC:140



                                                                                              W.A.No.2204 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 08.01.2026

                                                         CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
                                                      and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                               W.A.No.2204 of 2018
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.17221 of 2018


                  1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                     rep. by its Secretary to 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,
                     Coimbatore Range.

                  4. The Superintendent of Police,
                     Erode District.                                                       ...Appellants

                                                              Vs.
                  C.Vellingiri (Retd.SSI (HC 461)
                  D.No.5/242, Avinashilingagampalayam Street,
                  KaikattiPudur (Post), Avanishi,
                  Thiruppur District – 641 654.                                        …   Respondent


                  Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the

                  order of this Court in W.P.No.20881 of 2012 dated 31.10.2014.


                  1/5




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:52:30 pm )
                                                                                          W.A.No.2204 of 2018

                                  For Appellant                    : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
                                                                     Spl.Govt. Pleader

                                  For Respondents                  : No appearance

                                                      JUDGMENT

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

Though notice was served, none appeared for the respondent.

2. The Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Government against

various judgements, granting upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of

Police on completion of 25 years of service, irrespective of the period of

service in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of The

Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Home Secretary vs. V.Samy and

others [W.A.(MD) Nos.1506 of 2011, etc., batch] dated 17.06.2013.

However, in yet another case in The Principal Secretary to Government vs.

V.Ramachandran and others [Rev.A.Nos.79 to 79 of 2015, etc., batch]

dated 22.03.2017, the Division Bench of this Court took a contrary view to

the effect that the claim of deemed promotion cannot be accepted, by

further observing that the Bench could not “blindfold itself by the earlier

Division Bench judgment to allow the claim of the Writ Petitioners therein”.

3. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:52:30 pm )

correct law in respect of grant of upgradation in the Police Department.

4. When the Writ Appeal is taken up for hearing,

Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, 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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:52:30 pm )

5. By relying on the aforesaid answer to the reference,

Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, 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). He 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 order of the learned Single

Judge, granting deemed upgradation/promotion, which is the subject matter

of this Writ Appeal needs interference by this Court and is liable to be set

aside.

6. In view of the above submissions and taking into consideration the

ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court, this Writ Appeal is allowed