T L RANGANATHAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by six petitioners/Sub Inspectors of Police jointly aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the third respondent, the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, VIII Battalion, New Delhi in his proceedings No. Rc. No. A1/13092/2008 -- BO No. 545/2009 of 2009, dated 20.07.2009 and in the proceedings passed by the first respondent, Inspector General of Police(Armed Police), Kilpauk, Chennai in No. Rc. No. A1/1827/2009 -- 3, dated 30.06.2009 and another Proceedings No. C. No. Estt/I(i)/11545/IG/2000, dated 12.1.2001 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the first respondent to promote the petitioners to the post of Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 20.4.1999 and to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from 9.2.2010 by refixing the seniority of the petitioners in appropriate place in seniority list in due compliance with the order of the second respondent, dated 16.12.1998 vide Proceedings No. BO/929/98 and grant all other service benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Mr. B. Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners joined in the police service as Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion VIII on 17.3.1986 and the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. After some time, the petitioners were promoted as "Temporary Lance Naik" on 24.01.1987 and regularised on 18.3.1990. Thereafter, the petitioners were further promoted as "Temporary Naik" on 16.02.1993 and regularised as "A" Naik on 19.4.1993. Subsequently, they were further promoted as "Temporary Havildar" and regularised in the said post on 18.03.1994. Later, the petitioners were promoted as "Temporary Sub Inspector" on 12.01.2001 and with effect from 18.03.2005, the petitioners are serving as "A" List Regular Sub Inspector. Due to implementation of the order of regularisation with retrospective effect, all the petitioners were given benefit of Selection Grade in the post of Havildar on completion of 10 years of service on 17.3.2004 by the order dated 19.3.2005. When the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from 18.3.1994 and they were also granted the benefits of regularisation, contrary to Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the TNSPSS Rules"), the first respondent, Inspector General of Police (Armed Police) has erroneously exceeded the power given to him and infringing Rule 9 of the TNSPSS Rules, revised the seniority of the petitioners without giving any prior notice. Therefore, the impugned order seeking to revise the service right accrued by the petitioners, cannot be allowed to stand.

(2.) It was further pleaded that when the petitioners were conferred with the benefit of regularisation with retrospective effect from 18.03.1994, before revising the date of regularisation, the respondents have not even come forward to issue any notice to the petitioners.

(3.) It was also pleaded that even in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have admitted the fact of non-issuance of notice before passing the impugned order, hence, it was pleaded for the petitioners that when the respondents themselves have admitted the case of the petitioners that the impugned orders were passed without issuing any prior notice revising the date of regularisation as 18.3.1997, the same are liable to be set aside. Besides, the impugned orders, which have been passed with civil consequence have taken away the accrued rights of the petitioners, hence, the same are not only contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also against the settled law.