L MURTHY Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MYLAPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police along with his junior Chandravelu (H. C. 1251) since 1998 and pay all monetary benefits from the said date as Sub Inspector of Police.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Grade II constable on 15. 3. 1975 and one Chandravelu was appointed on 15. 5. 1975. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service under order dated 30. 5. 1980. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 9619 of 1983. On the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and numbered as T. A. No. 872 of 1989. By order dated 01. 03. 1990, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all service benefits except backwages. The petitioner joined duty on 20. 4. 1990. Immediately, thereafterwards, the petitioner filed Review Application in R. A. No. 59 of 1990 before the Tribunal in so far as the order did not provide for payment of backwages. By order dated 09. 08. 1991, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed payment of backwages to the petitioner apart from regulating the period of suspension upto reinstatement in accordance with Fundamental Rules within a period of three months. The petitioner was once again compelled to file O. A. No. 5709 of 1992, since the respondents did not pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioner. The said O. A. was allowed on 10. 01. 1995 holding that the petitioner is entitled to backwages under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, all these orders have become final and the respondents have not filed any appeal as against the same. In the meantime, the petitioner was once again visited with one more notice for the same charge, which was the subject matter in the earlier Original Application. Hence, the petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 5070 of 1997. By order dated 17. 12. 1997, the Tribunal allowed the O. A. holding that the respondents have no jurisdiction to decide the matter in which no liberty was reserved for the respondents to proceed or reopen the case. With these orders, the petitioner sought for regularisation of the service of the petitioner. It is stated that respondents preferred Writ Petition in W. P. No. 1092 of 1999 against the orders in O. A. No. 5070 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by this Court.