BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.17640 of 2021 J.Ganesan ...Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of Police, Railways, Chennai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Railways, Crawford, Thiruchirapalli. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.01.2020 made in C.No.A3/209/2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to notionally promote the petitioner as Gr.-I.P.C. with effect from 01.11.2005 on par with his batch mates by considering his representations dated 03.02.2020 and 26.06.2021 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Ramanujam For Respondents : M/s.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by a Grade-I Constable challenging the order passed by the second respondent and to notionally promote the petitioner as a Grade-I Constable w.e.f.01.11.2005 on par with his batch mates by considering his representation dated 03.02.2020.

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Grade-II Constable on 01.11.1995. He was promoted as a Grade-I police Constable on 01.11.2006 and then as a Head Constable on 01.11.2011.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the name of the petitioner should have been considered for promotion to the cadre of Grade-I police Constable w.e.f.01.11.2005 onwards. However, his name was not considered on the said date. Hence, he has given a representation to the respondents. The said representation was rejected under the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was under the check period after the expiry of punishment period and therefore, his name could not be considered for inclusion in the panel on 01.11.2005. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, he was imposed with a punishment on 20.09.2000 of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect for a delinquency that he had committed on 23.11.1999. He was also issued with a punishment on 20.09.2000 with the imposition of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect for a delinquency committed on 16.05.2000. The third punishment was imposed upon the writ petitioner on 25.03.2001 imposing a punishment of reduction in the scale of pay one stage for one year without cumulative effect for a delinquency that was committed on 06.09.1999.

5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the last punishment was imposed on 20.09.2000. If the check period of 5 years is calculated from the said date, the check period would expire on 20.09.2005. The crucial date for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Grade-I Constable is 01.11.2005. Therefore, his name should have been considered in the panel which was prepared on 01.11.2005. He further submits that the check period of 5 years cannot be calculated from the date of expiry of punishment period. It has to be calculated from the date of imposition of punishment.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the last punishment was imposed upon the writ petitioner on 20.09.2000 imposing a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The punishment would cease only in September 2001. If the check period is calculated from September 2001, it would expire only in September 2006. When the crucial date is 01.11.2005, his name cannot be considered. Therefore, it is clear that the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is that the check period of 5 years has to be ca