P. Mani vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Superintendent of Police

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The Petitioner herein seeks Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay all the monetary benefits and the

arrears on the revised pay in the post of Head Constable retrospectively with effect from 24.11.1999.

By proceedings dated 09.08.2005, the second Respondent pointed out that even though the Petitioner is entitled to have his promotion with

effect from 24.11.1999, as far as the monetary benefits are concerned, the Petitioner was entitled to have the same on and from 28.10.2004 only.

That for the notional promotion granted, the Petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefit. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition

is filed.

It is seen from the narration given in the affidavit that in respect of certain charges levelled against the Petitioner, the Petitioner moved the Tamil

Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which passed an order in O.A. No. 1653 of 1996 dated 18.09.2001 and set aside the charge memo. That even

before the final order was passed, the Department passed the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

By proceedings dated 12.05.2005, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, the first Respondent, allowed the appeal and the order

of punishment was set aside The order was communicated to the Petitioner on 30.6.2005.. Even though by proceedings of the second Respondent

dated 9.8.2005, the Petitioner was granted retrospective promotion as Head Constable with effect from 24.11.1999, monetary benefit was

granted only with effect from 28.10.2004. The plea of the Petitioner for giving monetary benefit to the post of Head Constable was denied to the

Petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India Vs. K.V.

Jankiraman, etc. etc., , wherein the Apex Court pointed out that once the charges framed against the delinquent officer ended in acquittal and the

departmental proceedings ending in favour of the delinquent officer, the monetary benefits and other attendant benefits could not be denied. This

will hold good even to a case of notional promotion granted to the officer concerned. Apart from placing reliance on the said proposition, learned

Counsel drew my attention to FR 54 Sub-rule (2) that once the proceedings had gone in favour of the Government servant, he would be entitled to

full pay and allowances. Only where the delinquent officer has delayed the whole proceedings that the Respondents could deny the claim as

provided for under the proviso to Sub-rule (2) and that the Government servant, he would be entitled to full pay and allowances. Only where the

delinquent officer has delayed the whole proceedings that the respondents could deny the claim as provided for under the proviso to Sub-Rule (2)

and that the laches on the part of the Government in completing the disciplinary proceedings could not be put against the Government servant to

deny the monetary benefit.

I have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court, which, in particular, had given the guideline as to the benefit that the Government servant

would be entitled to in respect of a notional promotion particularly in a case where the criminal proceedings had ended in acquittal and the

disciplinary proceedings too, in favour of the Government servant. Going by the regulations thus available on this issue, the order passed on

09.08.2005 in flatly rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for granting monetary benefit from the time he was promoted even notionally, hence,

merits to be set aside. laches on the part of the Government in completing the disciplinary proceedings could not be put against the Government

servant to deny the monetary benefit.

Considering the pendency of the writ petition from 2006 and to avoid further delay, I have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition by directing

the first Respondent herein to consider the claim of the Petitioner for granting of full pay benefits in accordance with Rule 54 by following the

decision of the Apex Court referred to above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.