AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Mr. S. Rajendran seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in C. No. 178959/NGB III (2)/2006 dated 9.10.2006 issued by the first respondent-Director General of Police in so far as the same was operating against the seniority of the petitioner at Serial No. 1 in the seniority list of Grade-I Police Constables fixed in 1980, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner as Head Constable and consider the claim of the petitioner for further promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police with appropriate service and monetary benefits. The claim made by the petitioner shows that he was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable on 2.1.75 and after passing the promotional test held in 1980, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 19.12.80. Subsequently, his pay was also fixed under FR 22-B by a proceeding dated 20.3.81 passed by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and the petitioner''s name was shown in Serial No. 1 in the seniority list dated 27.3.81 of Grade-I Police Constables who passed the Grade-I examination. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reverted for want of vacancy by the proceedings dated 30.4.82 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. However, by giving a representation, that mistake was rectified, resultantly, he was re-promoted as Grade-I Police Constable by another proceedings dated 24.7.1982. Subsequently, the then Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, without notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, altered the entire seniority list dated 27.3.81 by the proceedings dated 23.8.82. Subsequently, on giving various representations, the matter was taken to Government and the Government also, in its order issued in 1986 to the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, directed to review the entire issue. However, by proceedings dated 7.8.86, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range confirmed the seniority list of 1982 without reference to the ranking and seniority given on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the promotional test held in 1980.
In view of the above, several persons filed original applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in R.A. No. 90 of 1990 in T.A. No. 21 of 1988 etc. batch dated 4.11.91 and a direction was issued to consider the inclusion of Grade-II Police Constables in the ''C'' list on merits on the basis of the test marks. Subsequently, in the transferred T.A. No. 1416 of 1989 batch, by another order dated 29.4.92, the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to re-fix the seniority of Grade-I Police Constables based on the marks obtained by them in the promotional test held in 1980. While implementing the said order passed by the said Tribunal, a modified scheme was introduced for upgradation of Grade-II Police Constables, who rendered 10 years of service, as Grade-I Police Constables. When there was a clear direction to consider the candidates, whose cases were not considered, for promotion in the next panel year, Villupuram District was bifurcated from South Arcot District in 1989, as a result, Constabulary service was separated, the vacancy position was not notified. However, the said order was partially restored, but the petitioner was not given promotion. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner shows that when the Government had already taken a policy decision to give stages of promotion to the Grade-II Police Constables upto the grade of Special Sub Inspector of Police by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home (Police-5) Department dated 3.6.97 on the fulfillment of three conditions, viz., those who have completed 10 years of service are to be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables, those who have completed 15 years of service, out of which 5 years as Grade-I Police Constables were to be promoted and upgraded as Head Constables and those who have completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years as Grade-II Police Constables, 5 years as Grade-I Police Constable and 10 years as Head Constables, were to be promoted as Special Sub Inspector of Police without prejudice to their regular selection as Sub Inspector of Police, subject to disciplinary proceedings or break in service. That G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97 has not been even considered. Had it been considered, the petitioner would have been given promotion. As it was not done, the petitioner was forced to come to this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now the petitioner, while the matter is pending, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service. However, in spite of G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable only in the year 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted before this Court that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2009, within one year, he retired from service, viz., 2010. Therefore, the denial of promotion to the petitioner by the respondents is denial of implementing the G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97. When the said Government Order gives the method of upgradation from the post of Grade-II Police Constable to Grade-I Police Constable, from Grade-I Police Constable to Head Constable and from Head Constable to Sub Inspector of Police, the respondents wrongly denied the benefits to be given on the basis of their own G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97. On the above submissions, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by issuing suitable directions to the respondents to work out the petitioner''s service benefits.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. K. Rajendra Prasad, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that when the petitioner was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable on 2.1.75, he was given promotion to the post of Grade-I Police Constable on 19.12.80, of course, after passing the promotional test held in the year 1980. His pay was also fixed under FR 22-B in the promotional post on the basis of a proceeding dated 20.3.81 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore. Subsequently, when the petitioner''s name was shown in Serial No. 1 in the seniority list of Grade-I Police Constables maintained by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, a situation arose to alter the seniority list, for the reason that the South Arcot District came to be divided into Kanchipuram, Tiruvallur, Villupuram and Cuddalore Districts with two Range Deputy Inspector Generals of Police for administrative purpose. Therefore, the matter was taken to Government. The Government also, considering the fact that the then South Arcot District was divided into four administrative heads for an effective police administration, a proceeding dated 7.8.86 was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range accepting the tentative seniority list prepared on 23.8.82. Only on the basis of the seniority list dated 23.8.82, the petitioner was given promotion. In the meanwhile, an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in R.A. No. 99 of 1990 in T.A. No. 21 of 1988 etc. batch dated 4.11.97 to consider similar cases in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services for a higher place in the list to be drawn for the subsequent years on merits, was implemented. On the basis of the above order, no junior promotion list was drawn till 1991. Subsequently, the Government also introduced a revised promotional policy for conferring time bound promotions i.e., as Grade-I Police Constable after completion of 10 years of service and as Head Constable on completion of 5 years service as Grade-I Police Constable with total service of 15 years and those persons who were given promotion in the post of Head Constables should be considered for further promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service. Under this scheme, the petitioner was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 1993 and as Head Constable in 1998 along with the batch mates according to his seniority. Therefore, there is no reason or occasion to modify or revise the seniority given to the petitioner. It was also further submitted that the petitioner, after serving as Sub Inspector of Police from the year 2009, retired from service in 2010. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not call for any interference.
This Court is unable to agree with the reasoning given in the impugned order nor the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, as they are running contrary to the G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97. A perusal of the said G.O.Ms. No. 844 clearly makes the position clear that those who have been enlisted as Grade-II Police Constables, on completion of 10 years of service in the said post, should be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable. Again on completion of 5 more years of service in the post of Grade-I Police Constable, the same person should be further promoted to the post of Head Constable on completion of 15 years of total service. Once again, if the said Head Constable satisfactorily completes 10 years of service as Head Constable, putting together 25 years, should be further considered to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. But in the present case, when the petitioner was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable way back on 2.1.75, having been successful in the promotional examination held in the year 1980, subsequently, he was promoted on 19.12.80 as Grade-I Police Constable. He also joined duty on 25.12.80. While so, his name was also shown in Serial No. 1 in the seniority list of Grade-I Police Constables published in C. No. 67366/A2/80 dated 27.3.81 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97 was issued by the Government. By virtue of the criteria mentioned therein, the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of service, provided no departmental proceeding or punishment was pending against him. But the record shows that the petitioner was not subjected to any departmental proceedings. Therefore, on completion of 10 years of service from 2.1.75, he should have been promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable either in the month of January or February, 1985. Thereafter, on completion of 5 years of service in the said post, he should have been once again promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1990. After completing further 10 years of service in the said post, in the year 2000, the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police in terms of the G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97. But, unfortunately, the impugned order admittedly says that he was given promotion as Head Constable only in the year 1998.
In this context, it is also pertinent to refer to an order passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals in W.A. (MD) Nos. 1506 of 2011 etc., by order dated 17.6.2013, while considering a similar and identical issue on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97, G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home dated 21.7.98 and G.O.Ms. No. 15, Home dated 7.1.2010, the Division Bench, allowing the writ appeals in favour of the police personnel, directed to implement the aforesaid Government Orders. For better clarity, paragraphs 3 & 4 of the said order are extracted hereunder:-
Conferment of promotion as Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years is bound to be given in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 844 Home Department dated 3.6.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 937 Home Department dated 21.7.1998. In G.O.Ms. No. 15 Home Department dated 7.1.2010, it was further ordered as follows:
(i) Grade-II Police Constables, who have not been promoted as Grade-I Police Constable for want of vacancies, may be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables by the Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police concerned on completion of 10 years of qualifying service (in the post of Grade-II Police Constables) from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 10 years.
(ii) Grade-I Police Constables, who have not been promoted as Head Constables for want of vacancies may be upgraded as Head Constables by Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police concerned on completion of 5 years of qualifying service (in the post of Grade-I Police Constable) from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 5 years.
(iii) The Constables, who have completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years of service have been completed as Head Constables and not able to get regular promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police may be given upgradation as Special Sub Inspectors of Police from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 25 years of service by the respective Deputy Inspectors General of Police/Commissioners of Police.
From the above Government Orders, it is evident that actual service of five years as Head Constable is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, as they have been deemed to be promoted for the respective cadre of Head Constable on completion of five years as Grade-I PC (deemed upgradation) and ten years of service as Head Constable from the date of deemed upgradation as Head Constables, provided 25 years of total service is available. The said Government Orders were also extended to several persons similarly placed and batch of cases were allowed by applying the said Government Orders. The only contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader in these writ appeals are even if the seniority of the police constable should be counted from the date of appointment, irrespective of the transfer to other Wing or District, one has to complete five years of service as Head Constable for getting promotion as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The Government Order nowhere states that actual five years service in the cadre of Head Constable is mandatory.
When this Court had already considered the aforesaid Government Orders and concluded that the above said benefit should be extended to similarly placed police personnel, such benefit of giving promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of total service should be extended to the petitioner also. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1993 and subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable only in the year 1998 along with his batch mates, therefore, the 5 years and 10 years gap contemplated by G.O.Ms. No. 844 Home dated 3.6.97 cannot be circumvented, is far from acceptance. While repelling a similar contention, the Division Bench has held that the actual service of 5 years as Head Constable is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police, as they have been deemed to be promoted in the respective cadre of Head Constable on completion of five years as Grade-I Police Constable and ten years of service as Head Constable from the date of deemed upgradation as Head Constables, provided 25 years of total service is available. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had completed more than 25 years of service. Therefore, the seniority of the petitioner needs to be revised on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home Department dated 3.6.1997, G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 15 Home Department dated 7.1.2010. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 844, Home dated 3.6.97 followed by G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home Department dated 21.7.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 15 Home Department dated 7.1.2010 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.