STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. K GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 654 of 2010, whereunder in the application filed by the first respondent, the Tribunal has made the following directions to the respondents therein:

(2.) Being aggrieved the second respondent therein / State Government has preferred the instant petition, impugning the order on the ground that the direction of the Tribunal to promote the first respondent herein notionally and to give the benefits of promoted post of Inspector General of Police on fixation of scale in the retiral and pensionary benefits, is contrary to the well settled principles of law. It is further contended that the first respondent was at Serial No. 6 when the cases of other candidates were considered for promotion against the one vacancy in the rank of Inspector General of Police. It is next contended that when juniors of the first respondent were considered for promotion to the post of the Inspector General of Police, the first respondent has already retired from service. Thus, there was no occasion to consider his case for further promotion for the purpose of refixation of his pay and also grant of retiral benefits.

(3.) In response, the Union of India has filed a reply, stating therein that as per the promotion guidelines dated 15.1.1999 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India read with a letter dated 12.5.2000, in case there is delay in holding the Committee meeting for a year or more while considering the names yearwise, the names of those officers, who have since retired but fall under the zone of consideration for the relevant year may also be considered along with the other serving officers against the vacancies of that relevant year provided that they are eligible at that point of time.