Judgment The Original Application in O.A.No.1889 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. .2. Heard Mr.Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu .Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Recruitment to the post of Grade – II Police Constables took place in various years. In this case, I am concerned with the recruitment to the post of Grade – II Police Constables that took place in the year 1984. The recruitment of Grade – II Police Constables was made in one stroke in 1984, but they were made as two different batches for sending them to training. One batch, consisting of 940 personnel were sent to training on 01.08.1984. Since the required police recruitment school was not available, another batch was sent on 210. 1984. Both the persons were upgraded as Grade – I Police Constables with effect from 22.07.1997 and thereafter, they were further upgraded as Head Constables from 22.07.2002. However, the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984 were notionally upgraded from 25.07.1995 instead of from 22.07.1997 as Grade – I Police Constables and they were given the benefit of upgradation in the post of Head Constables with effect from 25.07.2000 instead of 22.07.2002 by G.O.Ms.No.1247, Home Department, dated 210. 2004. .4. Though the petitioner was recruited in the year 1984, he was sent for training in the second batch on 210. 1984. The persons belonging to his batch were not granted the benefit of notional upgradation from 25.07.1995 as Grade – I Police Constables and as Head Constables with effect from 25.07.2000 as given to the persons, who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not his fault for not being sent for the training that commenced from 31.08.1984. He should be granted the same benefit as given to the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. It is further stated that the Government granted upgradation for all Grade – II Police Constables, taking recruitment before 31st December of the year as cut off date in other cases. But in 1984 alone, they made discrimination by granting benefit to one batch and denying the same to another batch that was also recruited in the year 1984 itself. It is further stated that the Government granted upgradation for all Grade – II Police Constables, taking recruitment before 31st December of the year as cut off date in other cases. But in 1984 alone, they made discrimination by granting benefit to one batch and denying the same to another batch that was also recruited in the year 1984 itself. It is also stated that three Grade – II Police Constables who were sent for training along with the petitioner on 210. 1984 approached this Court to consider them for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as the others who were sent for training on 31.08.1984 were considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. They obtained interim order to participate in the selection process and they were also selected. Ultimately, their writ petitions were allowed by this Court in W.P.Nos.344, 347 and 391 of 2006 by order dated 13.04.2006. It is stated that the petitioners prayer is not for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and his prayer is for upgradation as Grade–I Police Constable with effect from 25.07.1995 notionally and Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000 notionally as given to the other persons who were recruited along with him but sent for training in the earlier batch on 31.08.1984. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced an additional typed set of papers containing various letters written by the Director General of Police to the Government recommending equal treatment to the persons who were sent for training on 210. 1984 on par with the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. 6. Based on such letters and the judgment referred to above, the petitioner prays for notional upgradation as Grade – I Police Constable with effect from 25.07.1995 and as Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000, in the present writ petition. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, the first respondent herein, filed the reply affidavit stating that since the petitioner was sent for training on 210. 1984, he could not seek parity with Grade–II Police Constables who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. 8. The Director General of Police wrote a letter dated 23.07.2005 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, recommending that the persons sent for training on 210. 1984, he could not seek parity with Grade–II Police Constables who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. 8. The Director General of Police wrote a letter dated 23.07.2005 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, recommending that the persons sent for training on 210. 1984 should also be given the similar treatment on par with the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. Paras 2 and 3 of the aforesaid letter of the Director General of Police are extracted here-under. "2) With reference to Government letter dated 21.06.2005, I am to state that the proposal sent in this Office letter dated 25.02.2005 has been initiated based on representations received from PCs enlisted on 210. 1984 who were upgraded as Gr.I. PCs w.e.f. 25.07.1997 as per G.O.Ms.No.844 Home (Pol.V) Dept, dated 25.07.1997. Their Grievance is that PCs who were enlisted up to 31.08.1984 have been upgraded as Gr.I. PCs w.e.f. 25.07.1995 (G.O.Ms.No.1681 Home (Pol.V) Dept, dated 110. 1992 fourth phase read with G.O.Ms.No.1247 Home (Pol.V) Dept, dated 210. 2004) and subsequently as HCs w.e.f.25.07.2000. Whereas those who were appointed in the same year i.e. 1984 but sent for training on 210. 1984 got their upgradation belatedly after two years as Gr.I w.e.f. 25.07.1997 and as HC w.e.f.29.07.02. The proposal has been sent to Government as their Grievance is genuine. 3) The reasons for extending the cut of date from 312. 1983 to 31.08.1984 for the fourth phase upgradation w.e.f. 25.07.1995 were explained in detail in this Office letters 25.02.2005 and 15.04.2005. The 650 Personnel mentioned in the said proposal are in addition to the 940 Personnel covered under G.O.Ms.No.1247 Home (Pol.V) Dept, dated 210. 2004. In view of the fact that upgradation have been ordered batch by batch based on year of recruitment, it is considered that it will be fit and proper to redress the Grievances of those (650 Personnel) appointed on 210. 1984 for parity with those appointed on 01.08.1984." 9.The Director General of Police wrote another letter dated 02.02.2006 on the same lines. Paras 2 and 3 of the said letter dated 02.02.2006 are also extracted here-under: "2) With reference to the discussions, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.V) Department had with Deputy Inspector General of Police, Administration on 02.02.2006, I am to inform that it is ascertained that the 650 PCs enlisted in 1984 were sent for training from 210. 1984 at the Ty. 1984 at the Ty. PRS Manimuthar, as adequate training facilities were not available in the regular training schools to accommodate all those enlisted in 1984 in one batch. It is ascertained that the time lag between the two batches was due to setting up of Ty.PRS. 3) Further as explained in this Office proposal first cited, upgradations have been conferred batch by batch on year to year basis and cut off date was 31st December, except this batch (1984 batch) in which the cut off date was fixed as 31.08.1984, which is now sought to be set right." 10. The Director General of Police wrote yet another letter dated 06.04.2006 requesting the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Po.V) Department to issue early orders revising the cut off date from 31.08.1984 to 312. 1984 so as to upgrade the persons who were sent for training on 210. 1984. Para 2 of the said letter dated 06.04.2006 is extracted here-under: "2) I request the Government to issue early orders to revise the cut of date from 31.08.1984 to 312. 1984 and enhancing the No. of posts from 4940 for the year 199596 under phase-IV as 5590 and to restore the upgradation of all 650 PCs appointed up to 312. 1984 as Gr.I. w.e.f. 25.07.1995 and as HC w.e.f.25.07.2000 so that all those appointed in 1984 could enjoy equal benefits." 11. The response of the Government is found in letter dated 20.12.2006. The Government did not oppose to the proposals sent by the Director General of Police. The Government only wanted the details about the quantum of expenditure, if the proposal was implemented. There were exchange of letters relating to quantum of expenditure. But no order was passed implementing the proposals of the Director General of Police. 12. In view of the proposals of the Director General of Police to grant the benefit of upgradation as Grade–I Police Constables / Head Constables to Grade–II Police Constables, who were sent for training on 210. 1984 on par with the persons who were sent for training on 31.08.1984, the petitioner is justified in his request for upgradation. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government also did not oppose for upgrading the Grade–II Police Constables who were sent for training from 210. 1984 on par with the Police Constables who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government also did not oppose for upgrading the Grade–II Police Constables who were sent for training from 210. 1984 on par with the Police Constables who were sent for training on 31.08.1984. They only wanted the details of expenditure for implementing the same. Yet another fact that is in favour of the petitioner that has to be taken into account is that the Government already granted the benefit of upgradation based on the year of recruitment and only in the year 1984, it was based on the month of training. Furthermore, three Grade–II Police Constables, who belong to the same batch who were sent for training on 210. 1984 approached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.344, 347 and 391 of 2006 praying for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground that the Grade–II Police Constables who were sent for training on 31.08.1984 were considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. They obtained an interim order to participate in the selection process and they were successful. Ultimately, this Court allowed the writ petition on 13.04.2006. Paras 16 and 17 of the said judgment are relevant to decide the issue involved in this case and the same are extracted here-under: "16. It is also the admitted case, the said 940 Grade II Police Constables who actually were sent for training on 01.08.1984 were treated along with the other 1984 batch of numbering 250 including that of the petitioners who were sent for training on 210. 1984 and they were in fact all jointly upgraded as Grade I Police Constables with effect from 22.07.1997 and they were made Head Constables on 22.07.2002. Therefore, even those 940 Grade II Police Constables of 1984 batch who were sent for training on 01.08.1984 were treated alike along with the other 1984 batch of Grade II Police Constables who were sent for training on 210. 1984 from the cadre of Grade I Police Constables and it is also admitted that based on their upgradation as Grade I Police Constables on 22.07.1997 they were further promoted after five years of service in the said cadre as Head Constable on 22.07.2002 and therefore, even till the Head Constable post they were treated alike with that of the petitioners. Whileso, when admittedly a concession has been shown to them namely such 940 personnels and notionally treating them as Grade I Police Constables with effect from 25.07.1995 and accordingly treating them as Head Constables in the year 2000 and others making them eligible to be included in the "C" list of Head Constables to be promoted for Sub Inspectors of Police in the year 2005 it is ununderstandable as to how the petitioners who have been similarly situated as that of the said 940 personnel at least from the Grade I Police Constables stage and also in the Head Constables stage have been denied such benefit which were conferred on the said 940 personnels. 17. This in my considered view, is certainly a discrimination and is not merely an anomalous situation. Of course, the Government is entitled to treat this as an anomalous situation and grant benefit to all the 250 personnel who are stated to be appointed from the year 1984 batch of Grade II Police Constables but sent for training on 210. 1984. But as far as the petitioners are concerned who have approached this Court and as per the direction of this Court they were also permitted to write examination and subsequently declared to have passed in the written test there is absolutely no reason to deny the benefits which have been conferred to the other 940 personnel as stated above." 13. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 09.02.2001 of the first respondent refusing to grant the petitioner upgradation as Grade-I Police Constable with effect from 25.07.1995 and Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000 is quashed and a direction is issued to the Government, the second respondent herein, to upgrade the petitioner as Grade – I Police Constable notionally with effect from 25.07.1995 and as Head Constable with effect from 25.07.2000, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.