IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
A.Vadivelu - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.No.12824 of 2015
Decided on : 03-03-2025
ORDER :
1.1. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:
1.2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Police Constable Grade II in Tamil Nadu Special Police on 17.01.1976 and after completion of the basic training, he was allotted to TSP II Battalion as Police Constable (General line). As he was qualified in driving, he gave willingness to serve in Motor Transport Wing and considering his request, the petitioner was posted as Police Constable (Motor Transport) in Motor Transport Wing of Tamil Nadu Special Police on 22.01.1982. While he was working as such, he was placed under suspension and thereafter, he was dismissed from service by order dated 17.04.1985 on certain charges.
1.3. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.470 of 1989 and T.A.No.337 of 1989 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the said order of dismissed was set aside by the learned Tribunal by order dated 10.05.1996 directing for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and the entire period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement was directed to be taken into account as duty period for the purpose of continuity of service and for other pensionary benefits. The said order of the learned Tribunal dated 10.05.1996 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 08.07.1997 in SLP (CC) No(s).4625-4626/1997.
1.4. It was thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service and he was extended all the benefits in terms of the said order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Driver Havildar on 30.03.1999 and further promoted to the post of Assistant Motor Transport Officer in the Motor Transport Wing of Tamil Nadu Special Police, that is, in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police. It was thereafter the petitioner started making a claim for promotion and other benefits on par with Respondent No.7 herein on the ground that Respondent No.7 is junior to him and he was promoted to the post of Inspector in General Line on 17.12.1997 and further promoted as Assistant Commandant and Deputy Commandant on 18.04.2004 and 24.09.2008 respectively. It is on considering the said request of the petitioner, Respondent No.4 passed an order dated 17.04.2012 intimating the petitioner that the petitioner was extended all the benefits in terms of the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 10.05.1996.
1.5. It is aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition contending that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion on par with Respondent No.7 herein.
2. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit and Respondent No.6 filed additional counter affidavit contending that the petitioner on being appointed as Police Constable (General Line) initially, he was posted in the Motor Wing in the year 1982 and whereas Respondent 7, who was initially appointed as Police Constable (General Line) was posted to Armourer Wing on 18.08.1984 and further career prospects of the petitioner and Respondent No.7 were considered depending upon the vacancy position in the higher post and in the respective Special Wings. Thus, the petitioner was considered for further promotions in Motor Wing and whereas Respondent No.7 was considered for further promotions in the Armourer Wing. Therefore, the petitioner cannot compare with Respondent No.7 for the purpose of claiming notional promotion on par with Respondent No.7.
3. In nutshel, it is the stand of Respondents No.1 and 6 that Motor Wing and Armourer Wing are two different compartments and the question of comparing one with the other does not arise, especially in the matter of promotion. It is also the further case of Respondents No.1 and 6 that in case if any of the Police Constable in Special Wings intends to go to the General Line, it is always open for them to make such a request and claim seniority in the General Line in terms of their initial
Promotion claims in specialized police wings are not transferable to the General Line without an explicit request for transfer, as per Rule 24(f) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service ....
The amendment to promotion rules ensures equal opportunity and fairness in promotions across Specialist and General Lines, prioritizing original recruitment seniority over internal promotions within ....
Temporary work arrangements or in-charge positions do not confer the right to claim promotion on par with juniors, and regular promotions should be granted following the rules and procedures.
The main legal point established is that under Rule 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, a probationer's service from a previous department can only be considered for pensiona....
Voluntarily choosing the path for promotion determines entitlement to claim seniority and promotion on par with juniors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.