BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/04/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.(MD)No.5998 of 2010
and
W.P.(MD)No.5999 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2010
N.Ponnulingam ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.5998/2010
S.Ponniah ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.5999/2010
Vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the
petitioners for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from January
2008 and 2010 respectively.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Ramasamy
^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan, G.A.
:COMMON ORDER
************
Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf
of the respondents. By consent, the main writ petitions itself are taken up for
final disposal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are appointed as Police
Constables in the year 1975 and 1977 respectively, by direct recruitment in the
Tamil Nadu Police Department and they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constable
in the year 1993 and 1995 respectively and subsequently as Head Constable in the
year 1998 and 1999 respectively. It is stated that the petitioners have
completed 35 years and 33 years of service in the police department and
according to them, they are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post
of Special Sub Inspectors of Police as per G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department
dated 07.01.2010, which contemplates a scheme of upgradation as a Special Sub-
Inspectors of Police in respect of a person, who is having experience of 25
years of service and 10 years of service as Head Constable in the police
department, by fixing 1st June of every year as crucial date. The relevant
portion of the said Government Order is as follows:
"The Director General of Police has now stated that the Government,
in their order in G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Police V) Department, dated 03.06.97 have
commenced the upgraded scheme in a time bound manner in respect of Police
Personnel and those Grade-II Police Constables who had completed 10 years of
service, were ordered to be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables and Grade-I
Police Constables who had completed 5 years of service to be upgraded as Head
Constables and similarly in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police 3) Department, dated
21.07.1998, the Government have introduced the scheme of upgradation as Special
Sub-Inspectors of Police, for which Police Personnel appointed as Grade-II
Police Constable should have completed 25 years of service, out of which for 10
years they should have served as Head Constable, and 1st June of every year was
fixed as crucial date."
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the said
Government Order, they are eligible for the upgradation under the Scheme as
Special Sub-Inspectors of Police and the petitioners have made representations
dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 respectively, for conferment to the benefit of
the said Government Order.
4. It is an admitted case that there was a departmental proceedings
initiated against the petitioners, which resulted in the order of punishment
dated 15.02.2008, by which, the petitioner have been inflicted punishment of
stoppage of increment for a period of two years, which shall not operate to
postpone their future increments and also on the pensionary benefits upon the
delinquents.
5. It is also an admitted case that as on the crucial date, the
currency of the said punishment is ineffect. Under similar circumstances, the
Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamilnadu
represents by its Secretary, Chennai and others reported in 2008(5) MLJ 350,
while refusing to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2
years with cumulative effect held that the punishment of stoppage of increment
for two years with cumulative effect can only be termed as minor punishment. On
that basis, the petitioners could not be denied promotion and such punishment
would not stand in the way of giving promotion while considering their past
service records. If they are otherwise eligible, taking note of the fact that
by the time, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation to consider
their promotion on supernumerary basis for the purpose of conferment of the
retirement benefits. The portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"The petitioner was admittedly imposed punishment of stoppage of
increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per G.O.(2D) No.49, dated
16.10.2000. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be
construed only as a minor punishment and solely based on the same, he could be
denied further promotion. It is seen further that stoppage of increment was
given effect by order, dated 16.10.2000 for two years. The respondents have not
denied that the petitioner had to attain superannuation only on 30.04.2003. In
such circumstances, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with
his junior, prior to the date of superannuation. If he is otherwise fir for
promotion along with his juniors, he would be eligible for national promotion
and based on which, eligible for corresponding retirement benefits."
6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench to the facts
and circumstances of the present cases, wherein, the punishment suffered and
which is in currency by the petitioners is stoppage of two increments without
cumulative effect and taking note of the fact that as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home
(Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, the petitioners are eligible to be
considered for the upgradation to the next post of Special Sub-Inspectors of
Police under the scheme of the Government enumerated above.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a
direction against the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioners' dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 and to pass appropriate orders
regarding the conferment of the upgradation of the petitioners as Special Sub-
Inspectors as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, if
there are no other legal impediment and such order shall be passed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Arul
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/04/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.(MD)No.5998 of 2010
and
W.P.(MD)No.5999 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2010
N.Ponnulingam ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.5998/2010
S.Ponniah ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.5999/2010
Vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the
petitioners for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from January
2008 and 2010 respectively.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Ramasamy
^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan, G.A.
:COMMON ORDER
************
Mr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf
of the respondents. By consent, the main writ petitions itself are taken up for
final disposal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are appointed as Police
Constables in the year 1975 and 1977 respectively, by direct recruitment in the
Tamil Nadu Police Department and they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constable
in the year 1993 and 1995 respectively and subsequently as Head Constable in the
year 1998 and 1999 respectively. It is stated that the petitioners have
completed 35 years and 33 years of service in the police department and
according to them, they are eligible for consideration for promotion to the post
of Special Sub Inspectors of Police as per G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department
dated 07.01.2010, which contemplates a scheme of upgradation as a Special Sub-
Inspectors of Police in respect of a person, who is having experience of 25
years of service and 10 years of service as Head Constable in the police
department, by fixing 1st June of every year as crucial date. The relevant
portion of the said Government Order is as follows:
"The Director General of Police has now stated that the Government,
in their order in G.O.Ms.No.844, Home (Police V) Department, dated 03.06.97 have
commenced the upgraded scheme in a time bound manner in respect of Police
Personnel and those Grade-II Police Constables who had completed 10 years of
service, were ordered to be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables and Grade-I
Police Constables who had completed 5 years of service to be upgraded as Head
Constables and similarly in G.O.Ms.No.937, Home (Police 3) Department, dated
21.07.1998, the Government have introduced the scheme of upgradation as Special
Sub-Inspectors of Police, for which Police Personnel appointed as Grade-II
Police Constable should have completed 25 years of service, out of which for 10
years they should have served as Head Constable, and 1st June of every year was
fixed as crucial date."
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the said
Government Order, they are eligible for the upgradation under the Scheme as
Special Sub-Inspectors of Police and the petitioners have made representations
dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 respectively, for conferment to the benefit of
the said Government Order.
4. It is an admitted case that there was a departmental proceedings
initiated against the petitioners, which resulted in the order of punishment
dated 15.02.2008, by which, the petitioner have been inflicted punishment of
stoppage of increment for a period of two years, which shall not operate to
postpone their future increments and also on the pensionary benefits upon the
delinquents.
5. It is also an admitted case that as on the crucial date, the
currency of the said punishment is ineffect. Under similar circumstances, the
Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamilnadu
represents by its Secretary, Chennai and others reported in 2008(5) MLJ 350,
while refusing to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increment of 2
years with cumulative effect held that the punishment of stoppage of increment
for two years with cumulative effect can only be termed as minor punishment. On
that basis, the petitioners could not be denied promotion and such punishment
would not stand in the way of giving promotion while considering their past
service records. If they are otherwise eligible, taking note of the fact that
by the time, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation to consider
their promotion on supernumerary basis for the purpose of conferment of the
retirement benefits. The portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"The petitioner was admittedly imposed punishment of stoppage of
increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per G.O.(2D) No.49, dated
16.10.2000. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be
construed only as a minor punishment and solely based on the same, he could be
denied further promotion. It is seen further that stoppage of increment was
given effect by order, dated 16.10.2000 for two years. The respondents have not
denied that the petitioner had to attain superannuation only on 30.04.2003. In
such circumstances, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with
his junior, prior to the date of superannuation. If he is otherwise fir for
promotion along with his juniors, he would be eligible for national promotion
and based on which, eligible for corresponding retirement benefits."
6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench to the facts
and circumstances of the present cases, wherein, the punishment suffered and
which is in currency by the petitioners is stoppage of two increments without
cumulative effect and taking note of the fact that as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home
(Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, the petitioners are eligible to be
considered for the upgradation to the next post of Special Sub-Inspectors of
Police under the scheme of the Government enumerated above.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a
direction against the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioners' dated 15.03.2010 and 08.02.2010 and to pass appropriate orders
regarding the conferment of the upgradation of the petitioners as Special Sub-
Inspectors as per the G.O.Ms.No.15 Home (Pol.V) Department dated 07.01.2010, if
there are no other legal impediment and such order shall be passed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Arul
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
