C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police along with his junior Chandravelu (H.C.1251) since 1998 and pay all monetary benefits from the said date as Sub Inspector of Police.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II constable on 15.3.1975 and one Chandravelu was appointed on 15.5.1975. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service under order dated 30.5.1980. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.9619 of 1983. On the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.872 of 1989. By order dated 01.03.1990, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all service benefits except backwages. The petitioner joined duty on 20.4.1990. Immediately, thereafterwards, the petitioner filed Review Application in R.A.No.59 of 1990 before the Tribunal in so far as the order did not provide for payment of backwages. By order dated 09.08.1991, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed payment of backwages to the petitioner apart from regulating the period of suspension upto reinstatement in accordance with Fundamental Rules within a period of three months. The petitioner was once again compelled to file O.A.No.5709 of 1992, since the respondents did not pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioner. The said O.A. was allowed on 10.01.1995 holding that the petitioner is entitled to backwages under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules.
3. Admittedly, all these orders have become final and the respondents have not filed any appeal as against the same. In the meantime, the petitioner was once again visited with one more notice for the same charge, which was the subject matter in the earlier Original Application. Hence, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.5070 of 1997. By order dated 17.12.1997, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. holding that the respondents have no jurisdiction to decide the matter in which no liberty was reserved for the respondents to proceed or reopen the case. With these orders, the petitioner sought for regularisation of the service of the petitioner. It is stated that respondents preferred Writ Petition in W.P.No.1092 of 1999 against the orders in O.A.No.5070 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by this Court.
4. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the orders in his favour setting aside the charges and regularising the service, the petitioner was not promoted as Head Constable even though his other batch mates were promoted as such in the year 1994. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable with effect from 1.12.1995 under order dated 16.3.1996 along with Murugesan and Jaffrullakhan. The petitioner states that for further promotion, the petitioner has to appear before the Selection Board and that persons who had put in four years service as Head Constable alone were eligible. The petitioner, although was eligible to appear before the Selection Board in the year 1998, yet, by reason of the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner's name was not considered.
5. In the background of the said facts, the petitioner moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal once again in O.A.No.9621 of 1998. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.34165 of 2006. It is stated by the petitioner that one Chandravelu, junior to the petitioner, filed O.A.Nos.4121 of 2001 and 2485 of 2003 before the Tribunal. By order dated 30.10.2003, the said O.A. was allowed directing the respondents to convene a wage promotion Board (Special) and Chandravelu and others to appear before it and participate in the test and that the respondents were directed to select them if they were otherwise found for appointment of Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, on 18.1.2005, Chandravelu and four others were promoted as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner submits that the order passed as early as 1.3.1990 quashing the charges and directing re-instatement of the petitioner with all the service benefits should have been given due implementation; that the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Head Constable as early as 1994, so that the petitioner should have been considered for further promotion as Sub-Inspector in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal. To implement the orders of the Tribunal in its full spirit in O.A.No.4121 of 2001 dated 30.10.2003 the respondents placed the petitioner below his Junior Chandravelu. Hence, the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.8169 of 2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even though the petitioner had been promoted as Sub-Inspector in January 2007, considering the orders passed by the Tribunal as early as 1990 and again by the Review Application No.59 of 1990 dated 9.8.2001 granting him backwages, the proper course is for the respondents to have taken his name along with Chandravelu, who was promoted in the year 1994 so that atleast notional benefits of promotion should be available to the petitioner for working out his pensionary benefits.
7. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter wherein it is stated that Chandravelu was promoted as Head Constable on 28.9.1994, which was subsequently modified as 19.1.1994. Following the Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2003 in O.A.No.4121 of 2001, Special Range Promotion Board was convened during August 2004. Chandravel and 5 others had attended the Special Range Promotion Board, got selected and were included in the 'C' list of Head Constables (Local) fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Local) for the year 1998 and were placed on par with that of their juniors. The petitioner had also attended the Promotion Board for the panel year 2001, 2002 and 2004 but was not selected and included in the 'C' list for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, as he had not obtained the required gradings. Hence, there are no merits in these writ petitions.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
9. The counter filed before this Court, although admits the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of punishment and directing the respondents to regularise the services, yet, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable with effect from 1.12.1995 along with Murugesan and Jaffrullakhan and allowed to complete his probation period in the category of Head Constable, under order dated 16.3.1996 of the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District. It is admitted that the period of suspension from 26.09.1979 to 29.05.1980 and the period of out of employment from 30.5.1980 to 19.04.1990 underwent by the petitioner was treated as eligible leave and his pay was also regulated and the arrears of pay and allowances were paid to the petitioner.
10. The reasoning given in paragraph 24 of the counter thus indicates that the order passed by the Tribunal attained finality, yet the same was not given its full thrust. It must also be kept in mind that the second charge alleged against the petitioner was quashed by the Tribunal in its order dated 17.12.1997 in O.A.No.5070 of 1997. The writ petition as against the said order was also dismissed. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the benefits of the order of the Tribunal passed more than once quashing the charge memo and the directions of the order regularising the service of the petitioner should have been taken note of while considering his claim for inclusion in the promotion list when he appeared before the Promotion Board, cannot be lightly thrown out.
11. Considering the fact that the petitioner was promoted as a Trainee Sub-Inspector on 25.1.2007 on seniority basis and that the petitioner is left with two more years of service, in fairness to the claim of the petitioner, this Court feels that the proper course is to direct the respondent to give the petitioner the benefits of the order of the Tribunal made as early as 1.3.1990 in T.A.No.872 of 1989 followed by the subsequent orders of the Tribunal in the Review Application 59 of 1990 dated 09.08.2001.
12. The counter filed before this Court touches nothing on the order of the Tribunal's order passed in the year 1990 and the benefit flowing therefrom. In paragraph 26 of the counter, the respondents state that the petitioner was not called for the interview before the Promotion Board for the panel year 1998 as he has not completed four years of service in the category of Head Constable as on 1.7.1998. The situation thus created is one which had arisen not on account of the petitioner, but strictly on account of the respondents alone, keeping in mind the fact that the Tribunal had already set aside the order as early as 1.3.1990 and the petitioner had joined the services on 20.4.1990. Thus the order of dismissal from service dated 30.5.1980 already set aside, the respondents should have considered the claim of the petitioner in a just and fair manner in tune with the said orders, which had attained finality.
13. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion from the date from which he would be entitled to in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal dated 1.3.1990 and the Review order passed by the Tribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the purpose of working out the pensionary benefits. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
sl To
1. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
2. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police, Chengalpattu Range, Alandur, Chennai 16.
3. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Teynampet, Chennai 18.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram