N.Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:22.10.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.30330 OF 2006ANDM.P.NOS.1 OF 2006 AND 1 OF 2007N.Nagarajan ...PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. Director General of Police, Chennai-4. ...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as statedwithin.For Petitioner: Mr.S.Mani For Respondents: Mr.M.Dhandapani Additional Government PleaderO R D E RSeeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus toquash the order passed by the second respondent made inRc.No.100478/NGB-IV(1)/2001 dated 25.8.2001 and the consequentialorder passed by the first respondent in LetterNo.29819/Police.III/2006-3, Home (Police III) Department, dated23.5.2006 and further to issue a direction to the respondents toregularize the services of the petitioner in the cadre of SubInspector of Police with effect from 10.9.1986 and to give dueseniority and further promotion as Inspector of Police and conferall the consequential benefits.2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.4. The case of the petitioner, who seeks the relief, inshort, is that he joined service in Tamil Nadu Police Services asGrade II Constable in the year 1971 and thereafter he was promotedas Grade I Police Constable in 1973 and further as Sub Inspectorof Police on 2.9.1986 on out of seniority basis and joined on10.9.1986. The said promotion was given in the regular vacancy andhe has earned about 260 awards to his credit. His services wereregularized from 21.2.1995 by memorandum dated 20.7.1996. Thoughthe petitioner was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police on out ofseniority basis on 10.9.1986, his services were regularised onlyfrom 1.2.1995 long after the period of ten years depriving him tocontinue as Sub Inspector of Police since 1986 and also as aconsequence of deprivation of ten years of service, his furtherpromotional opportunity was also delayed. The direct recruits of1987 batch were included in the Panel of Sub Inspector of Policefit for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police for the year1996-97. Thus, the 1987 batch has been given upper birth, while hehas been discharging his duties sincerely as Sub Inspector ofPolice. His regularization from 21.2.1995, after the period ofnine years, has deprived him of the promotion also. Due to theadministrative delay, the service benefits of nine years weredenied to the petitioner, even though he was virtually workedsince 10-9-1986. His continuous service cannot be deprived. Undersuch circumstances, on the ground of denial of retrospectiveregularization, the petitioner filed Original Application beforethe Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6299 of 2001. Since therewas no Presiding Officer, the petitioner filed writ petitionbefore this Court seeking to transfer the above OriginalApplication and the same has been transferred and numbered asW.P.No.31914 of 2005. This Court by order dated 25.8.2001 directedthe petitioner to make a representation to the Government forretrospective regularization within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of that order and the same has to bedisposed off by the Government within a period of eight weeks fromthe date of receipt of representation. Accordingly, the petitionermade a representation for retrospective regularization on22.3.2006 and the Government passed the impugned order dated23.5.2006 whereby rejecting his representation and a consequentialorder has also been passed by the first respondent. Under suchcircumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file the abovewrit petition before this Court.5. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner,learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner has joined service as Grade II Police Constable in theyear 1971 and thereafter he was promoted as Grade I Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constable in 1973 and further as Head Constable in 1982. He wasfurther promoted on out of seniority basis in the year 1986 as SubInspector of Police and he was worked so. But, he has beenregularized only from 21.2.1995 after a decade and under suchcircumstances, he is entitled to have regularization from the datewhen he was working as Sub Inspector of Police and in a given caselike this, number of petitions were filed before the Tribunalviz.,O.A.No. 1565 of 1995 and other cases. An order came to bepassed on 30.11.1995 whereby a direction has been issued to theState to regularize the services of the police personnel, who havebeen actually put in service and also issued a direction forpromotion. While passing the order, the Tribunal has also orderedthat the Head Constables, who have been acting as Sub Inspectorsof police for a period of six years and above as on the date ofthe memorandum, without any black mark or without any punishmentswhatsoever, should be regularized as Sub Inspectors of Police andseniority should be fixed according to the rules and pursuant tothe order, the petitioner made an application for regularizationearlier when he was working as Sub Inspector of Police. Since theoriginal Application could not be disposed of by the Tribunal, thepetitioner was compelled to file a writ petition before thisCourt. While there was a direction, permission was given to him tofile a representation and the Government, while disposing of therepresentation, without assigning any reason whatsoever, haverejected the same. The earlier order of the Tribunal made in theyear 1995 should be given effect to in its letter and spirit. Ifdone so, the petitioner, who was acting as Sub Inspector of policefor more than six years, should have been promoted and regularizedas Sub Inspector of Police from the date on which he was actuallyworked; but it was not done so. Learned counsel for thepetitioner, in support of his contention, relied on two decisionsof this Court and further submitted that in both the cases, thisCourt issued directions that the Department should strictly followthe orders of the Original application, wherein the department hasalso followed. Under such circumstances, the same benefit shouldbe given to the petitioner retrospectively and hence this writpetition has got to be ordered.6. The Court heard the learned counsel for therespondent on the above contentions.7. Learned counsel for the respondent, in short, wouldsubmit that it is true that in the original application before theTribunal, there was a direction given to the State that the HeadConstables, who were acting as Sub Inspectors of police for morethan six years, should be regularized as Sub Inspectors of Policeand seniority should be fixed according to the rules. But, nowhere, the Tribunal has stated that while regularization is given,it should be given retrospectively and even while passing orders, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court, nowhere, has ordered to give regularization and to fixthe seniority retrospectively. In the instant case, the petitionerhas been regularized from 21.2.1995 and thus taking intoconsideration and following the judgment, regularization has beenmade. Learned counsel for the respondents would further add thatit is not correct to state that the representation of thepetitioner has been rejected, without assigning proper reasons. Areading of the order of rejection by the respondent authoritywould indicate that the representation has been considered and allthe candidates who were equally placed have been given seniorityand has been regularized from 21.2.1995 and while the similarlyplaced persons were regularized from 21.2.1995, the petitionercannot have any grievance at all and hence the writ petition hasgot to be dismissed.8. The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmission made.9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner who joinedService as Grade II Police Constable was promoted as Grade IPolice Constable and further he was promoted as Head Constablefrom 1982 and on out of seniority basis, he was promoted as SubInspector of Police from 2.9.1986, but his services wereregularized only from February 1995. According to the petitioner,if regularization has not been made from the time when he was soacting as Sub Inspector of Police, i.e. from September 1986, hewould loose his seniority and promotion and hence, there should bea direction to the Department to regularize his services fromSeptember, 1986. It is not in controversy that similarly placedpersons have filed Original Applications before the Tribunal andthe Tribunal has also issued various directions to the Departmentto regularize their services and one of the direction was that ifthe Head Constables who were working as Sub Inspectors of Policefor more than six years and above as on the date of impugnedmemorandum, without any black mark or without any punishmentwhatsoever, shall be regularized as Sub Inspectors of Police. Inthe instant case, it is not in controversy that the services ofthe petitioner has been regularized from February 1995 as SubInspector Police. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point outthat from a reading of the order of the Tribunal, it is clear thatno where it is stated that regularization should be given withretrospective effect. It is also the submission of the petitionerthat similarly placed persons have also been given regularization,pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal and also from the datesubsequently thereto. If the services of the petitioner has gotto be regularized from September, 1986 onwards, the services ofthousands and thousands of police personnel, who were equallyplaced like the petitioner and whose services have beenregularized pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal have got to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thoroughly changed and once so long as the petitioner is unable toshow that the order of Tribunal was to the effect thatregularization has to be given retrospectively, no question ofconsidering the regularization afresh. Even in the ordersrendered by this Court and relied on by the learned counsel, nowhere it is stated that regularization should be givenretrospectively. It would be indicative of the fact that the orderof the Tribunal has got to be strictly followed, so long as thepetitioner rests his case on the order of the AdministrativeTribunal, this Court is afraid as to whether the regularizationcould be ordered from September 1986; but his services have beenregularized from February, 1995 to which he is entitled to. Apartfrom this, it cannot be commented that the order of rejection ofrepresentation of the petitioner by the respondent departmentcannot be without reasons. It is also clearly made out thatsimilarly placed police personnel were given regularizationpursuant to the orders of the Tribunal. Hence this Court is of theconsidered opinion that no case is made out for regularizing theservices of the petitioner from September, 1986 onwards andtherefore, the writ petition requires only an order of dismissaland accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 are also dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.VJYTo1 The Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.2. Director General of Police, Chennai-4. 1 CC TO Mr.S. Mani, Advocate, Sr. 637521 cc to the Government Pleader, sr. 63604W.P.NO.30330 OF 2006ANDM.P.NOS.1 OF 2006 AND 1 OF 2007RS (CO)kk 31/10