The petitioner has filed this writ petition, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner and restore his name in the C list of Superintendent for the year 1993-94 published by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.41958/NGB II/1/93 dated 5.8.93 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his juniors.
2. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant on 3.9.73 in Vellore District. He was promoted as Assistant on 3.12.80 in the same district, and was due for promotion as Superintendent in the year 1993-94, but he was not promoted due to pendency of a criminal case against him.
3. The petitioner was also directed to face departmental enquiry under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. While ignoring the petitioner for promotion on account of pendency of criminal case and departmental enquiry, the persons by name Sudalaiyandi and Ranja, juniors to the petitioner were promoted on 5.8.93.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was acquitted in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner was also dropped. The respondents after acquittal and dropping of the departmental enquiry promoted the petitioner on 16.5.97.
5. The only grievance of the petitioner is, that in view of the acquittal in the criminal case and dropping of departmental enquiry, he is entitled to be considered and promoted from the date, his juniors were promoted i.e., from 5.8.93.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader, has opposed the petition, on the ground that the petitioner, on the date of consideration of juniors, was not eligible for promotion, therefore he was rightly promoted when he became eligible, he cannot claim retrospective promotion.
7. On consideration, I find that the writ petition deserves to succeed. Once the case of the petitioner was not considered due to pending departmental enquiry and pendency of criminal case, he had to be considered from the due date after acquitted in the criminal case, specifically when departmental proceedings against him were also dropped.
8. The action of the respondents in not accepting the request of the petitioner for promotion from the date of his juniors' promotion, is illegal being patently arbitrary, and discriminatory thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., w.e.f. 5.8.1993 with all consequential benefits. No costs.
8-6-2012 sr Index:yes website:yes To
1. The Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9
2. The Director General of Police Chennai-9 VINOD K. SHARMA, J., sr W.P.No.4986 of 2007 8.6.2012