K. CHANDIRAMOHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

(2.) This Writ Petition has been filed by a retired Police Personnel seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent passed in the proceeding in Endt No. A1/17593/2017 dated 23.11.2017 and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to upgrade the post of petitioner as Grade-I Police Constable/Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police notionally giving monetary benefits in view of G.O.Ms. No. 844 Home Department, dated 3.6.1997, G.O.Ms. No. 937, Home Department, dated 21.7.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 15 Home Department, dated 7.1.2010 herein in the light of the Judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2989/2011, 2888/2011 order dated 27.6.2011 and W.P.(MD) No. 4864/2011 order dated 27.4.2011 and consequently revise his pension and grant him all consequential benefits.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services on 15.2.1979 and he should have been promoted on 15.2.1989 as Grade I Police Constable i.e. on completion of ten years but, he was actually promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 26.2.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable on 10.05.2000 and he was promoted as Special Sub Inspector of Police on 10.05.2010. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have not followed the principles and rules thereof in fixing the seniority of the petitioner. Having the wrong seniority fixed by the respondents, the petitioner could not get promotion on the due dates. In this regard, he would submit that the petitioner has made a representation mentioning all those facts to the respondents and the same was rejected by the fourth respondent by the present impugned order. Adding further, he would submit that in similar circumstances, Madurai Bench in W.P.(MD)Nos.2988, 2989 dated 27.6.2011 and W.P.(MD) No. 4864 of 2011 dated 27.4.2011, granted the benefits to the petitioners therein and therefore, he prays that the benefit of the said judgment may be extended to the present petitioner also.