SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3325

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


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.T.Thanjan
For the Respondent:Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Vijay Shankara

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 Rules.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 - Rule 24(f) - Promotion and seniority - The petitioner, a reinstated Police Constable, claimed notional promotion on par with a junior officer in a different specialized wing. The court held that the Motor Wing and Armourer Wing are distinct compartments, and the petitioner did not opt for transfer to the General Line, thus not entitled to claim parity. (Paras 1.2, 1.4, 5, 9, 10)

(B) Administrative Tribunal Orders - Compliance - The petitioner failed to demonstrate non-compliance with the Tribunal's order regarding promotion and benefits. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service in 1985, reinstated in 1996 with benefits, and later sought notional promotion based on a comparison with a junior officer in a different wing.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for notional promotion as he did not opt for the General Line and failed to provide evidence of entitlement.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could claim promotion on par with a junior officer in a different specialized wing and whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that promotions in specialized wings do not carry over to the General Line unless a transfer is requested, and the petitioner did not make such a request.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top