Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3372
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
P. Mariappan
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home (Police 1A) Department Fort St. George
W.P.No.9624 of 2007
Decided on: 17-09-2008
For the Petitioner: K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent: N. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Ruling 17 under FR 27, which governs the fixation of pay for a government servant promoted to a higher post after restoration of original seniority.
Headnote:
Ruling 17 - Challenge to Ruling 17 under FR 27 and order passed by the 1st Respondent - FR 27 - Summary: The court discussed the application of Ruling 17 under FR 27, which governs the fixation of pay for a government servant promoted to a higher post after restoration of original seniority. The court highlighted the interpretation of the ruling in fixing the petitioner's pay and its impact on the petitioner's claim for salary and pensionary benefits. The ruling influenced the court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for a supernumerary post and salary in the cadre of Superintendent of Police for a specific period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought nullification of Ruling 17 under FR 27 and an order rejecting his request for a supernumerary post and salary in the cadre of Superintendent of Police. The petitioner's claim related to his promotion and seniority, and the subsequent denial of salary and benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for salary and pensionary benefits was influenced by the application of Ruling 17 under FR 27. The court analyzed the petitioner's eligibility for salary and benefits based on the restoration of his original seniority and the subsequent promotion to the higher post.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to salary and pensionary benefits, the application of Ruling 17 under FR 27, and the impact of the petitioner's promotion and seniority on his claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Ruling 17 under FR 27, which governed the fixation of the petitioner's pay and influenced the rejection of his request for a supernumerary post and salary in the cadre of Superintendent of Police for a specific period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's request for a supernumerary post and salary in the cadre of Superintendent of Police for a specific period, based on the application of Ruling 17 under FR 27.
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to ruling 17 under FR 27 and order passed by the 1st Respondent in letter No.49868/Pol.1A/2004-4 dated 30/10/2004. The Petitioner seeks direction that Ruling 17 under FR 27 and the impugned order dated 30.10.2004, as null and void and seeks further direction to the Respondents to create a supernumerary post in the rank of Superintendent of Police from the period from 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 and to disburse the arrears of pay and pensionary benefits due to the Petitioner on par with his juniors.
2. Factual background which lead to filing of the writ petition are as follows:
(i) The Petitioner Mariappan entered the service as a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police on 211. 1966. After getting his promotions as Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police he was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police on 18.05.2000. As per his seniority, he became eligible in the zone of consideration for inclusion in the panel of Additional Superintendents of Police fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police for the year 2001-2002. But he was not included in the said panel in view of currency of the punishment of censure awarded to him on 21.05.2001, by the Director General of Police. In G.O. (2D) No.443, the punishment of censure awarded to the Petitioner was cancelled by the Government.
(ii) Subsequently, Petitioners name was included as Sl.No.1 in the panel of Additional Superintendents of Police fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police for the year 2002-2003, approved by Government. In G.O.Ms.No.1130, Home Department, dated 211. 2002. In the meanwhile, Petitioner was served with a Charge Memo dated 10.01.2003 under 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules before his actual promotion. Hence Petitioners name was deleted from the said panel for promotion as temporary Superintendent of Police for the year 2002-2003.
(iii) The Petitioner filed O.A.No.334/2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for promotion as Superintendent of Police by including his name in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police fit for promotion as temporary Superintendent of Police for the year 2001-2002, and another O.A.No.394/2003 for quashing the Charge Memo dated 10.01.2003 under rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules served on him on 11.01.2003. By common order dated 10.02.2003, the Administrative Tribunal directed to convert the charge against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) to 17(a) of TNCS (D&A) Rules and to consider his promotion for the post of Superintendent of Police, if he is otherwise fit.
(iv) Challenging the order of Administrative Tribunal State Government has filed two writ petitions Nos.13499 and 16612/2003 , the High Court has confirmed the order of Administrative Tribunal.
(v) Government has passed G.O.(3D).No.129, Home Department, dated 20.11.2003, issued orders that the Petitioner be temporarily promoted as Superintendent of Police and he was posted as Superintendent of Police on 23.02.2004, subject to the outcome of writ petitions. Meanwhile, as per direction of the Government in Letter (D) No.88, Home Department, dated 27.01.2004, the charge framed against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) was modified to 17(a) and the same was dropped by the 2nd Respondent by the order dated 15.03.2004. In accordance with his seniority as Additional Superintendent of Police, the Government passed order in G.O.Ms.No.532, Home Department dated 08.04.2004, ordering inclusion of Petitioners name in the panel of the year 2001-2002 at Sl.No.2A.
(vi) The Petitioner requested for creation of a supernumerary post in the rank of Superintendent of Police for the period 22.07.2002 (When his junior assumed charge as Superintendent of Police) to 22.02.2004, the date prior to the date of his actual assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police. The Petitioners request was considered and the Government by the impugned order rejected Petitioners request for creation of supernumerary post and for payment
