IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.2.2011
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.43088 of 2006
BABU [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CHENNAI CITY
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CHENNAI 4 [ RESPONDENTS ]
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in RC.No.Estt.V(1)/1032/90803/2006, dated 24.10.2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from 29.5.1998 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Muthappan
For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24.10.2006 and to direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner, as a head constable, with effect from 29.5.1998, with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been promoted as a head constable (temporary), on 29.5.1998, along with certain other police personal, namely, Kannan, Vijayan, Sasithar, and Sampathkumar. Even though the promotion of the four other persons had been regularised, as head constables (regular), on 30.6.1999, the promotion of the petitioner had been regularised only from 31.7.2000. No valid reasons were available for the respondents to regularise the promotion of the petitioner, as a head constable (regular), belatedly.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, no proper reasons had been stated for treating the petitioner differently. When all the relevant factors are similar in nature, no proper reasons are shown for regularising the promotion of the petitioner, as a head constable (regular), only on 31.7.2000, even though the other similarly placed persons had been regularised in the promoted post, on 30.6.1999, itself.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had furnished the following particulars by way of a communication, dated 28.1.2011, in Rc.No.Estt.V(1)/1147/ 106458/2006, from the first respondent.
HC 12202 HC 12271 HC12232 HC12191 HC12190
Babu Kannan Vijayan Sasithar Sampath
(petitioner) (Junior) (Junior) (Batchmate -kumar
(Batchmate)
Date of 2.2.1968 18.5.1962 8.5.1969 28.3.1967 4.5.1967
Birth
Date of
Enlistment8.9.1988 19.12.1988 17.11.1988 8.9.1988 8.9.1988
Date of
promotion 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995
as Gr IPC
Date of
promotion
as HC (Ty)29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998
Date of
promotion
as
HC(Regular)31.7.2000.30.6.1999.30.6.1999.30.6.1999.30.6.1999
Date of
completion
of probation30.7.2002 12.7.2001 24.6.2000 8.8.2001 30.6.2001
AN AN AN AN AN
5. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24.10.2006, and to direct the respondents to regularise the promotion of the petitioner on par with the other similarly placed persons, along with the consequential service and other monetary benefits that would be due to him.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
lan
To:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CHENNAI CITY
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CHENNAI 4