Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2235 (MAD)

R. Ulaganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2019-08-30

K.K.SASIDHARAN, P.T.ASHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. Introductory:- 1. These matters relate to the claim of upgradation as Grade I Head Constable and Special Sub Inspector of Police based on the Government Orders issued from time to time to solve the problem of stagnation without promotion in the police Department. The policemen who are the petitioners in the Writ Petitions claimed deemed promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police with attendant service and monetary benefits, without rendering the actual service of 10 years in the rank of Head Constable for making them eligible for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police. In short, completion of 25 years of service as a police constable without there being ten years service as Head Constable was taken as the basis to claim upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The claim made for deemed promotion was allowed by the High Court earlier without considering the purport of the relevant Government Orders. The position was changed subsequent to the order dated 22 March 2017 in Review Applications (MD) Nos. 70/2015 etc. batch wherein the Division Bench made it very clear that it would not be possible to promote a Head Constable as Special Sub Inspector of Police by way of upgradation without completing 10 years of service, notwithstanding the completion of 25 years of service as a police constable. Brief facts:- 2. The respondents were recruited in the Tamil Nadu Police Service during 1960s and 1970s. The initial appointment was in the post of Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. 3. The policemen were not in a position to get promotion on account of their inability to pass the prescribed test and it was also due to lack of vacancy in the post of Head Constables and Sub Inspector of Police and other higher ranks. The Government of Tamil Nadu with a view to solve the problem of stagnation of constables serving in the same rank for several years, without getting even a single promotion, issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 1681, Home (Police V) Department dated 12 October 1992. The Government took a decision to upgrade 21,000 posts of Grade II Police Constables and 2700 post of Grade I police Constable in a phased manner, extended to a period of five years from 1992-1993. The policemen were all given the benefit of such upgradation. No. 1681, Home (Police V) Department dated 12 October 1992. The Government took a decision to upgrade 21,000 posts of Grade II Police Constables and 2700 post of Grade I police Constable in a phased manner, extended to a period of five years from 1992-1993. The policemen were all given the benefit of such upgradation. 4. The policemen, after a considerable period, and in many a cases after retirement, started filing Writ Petitions, claiming retrospective upgradation. Their claim was mainly on the ground that they have completed 25 years of total service as police constable, making them eligible for upgradation, taking into account the period prescribed under the Government Orders. 5. The string of Writ Petitions filed before the Madurai Bench were allowed and a direction was issued for retrospective deemed upgradation. Those orders were unsuccessfully challenged by the Government. However, in the review applications filed subsequently, the Division Bench considered the Government Orders in its entirety and held that the Orders would not give a right to the police constables to claim deemed upgradation retrospectively by reckoning the date of initial entry in the police service. The issue in the present appeals also relate to the very same "Deemed promotion". The parties wanted adjudication of the present intra court appeals in spite of the order dated 22 March 2017 in R.A(MD) Nos. 70 of 2015 batch, governing the matter. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Discussion:- 7. The policemen who are the parties to these appeals were recruited as Police Constables Grade II initially. The appointments were made in 1960s and 1970s. The majority of the policemen retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Some of the policemen made a claim for retrospective "Deemed upgradation" even during the currency of their service. Similarly, the retired police personnel also made a claim for deemed upgradation, notwithstanding their severance of status as employees of the Government. 8. The Government earlier issued string of orders to address the issue regarding stagnation of police constables stranded in the very same rank for several years without receiving even a single promotion. The Government wanted to motivate the policemen by addressing the issue relating to their service. 9. 8. The Government earlier issued string of orders to address the issue regarding stagnation of police constables stranded in the very same rank for several years without receiving even a single promotion. The Government wanted to motivate the policemen by addressing the issue relating to their service. 9. We now extract the relevant Government Orders for resolving the issue raised in the appeals. The relevant Government Orders:- (i) G.O. Ms. No. 1681, Home Pol. V Department, dated 12 October 1992 (a) This Government Order was issued to upgrade 21000 posts of Grade II Police Constables as Grade I Police Constables and 2700 Grade I Police Constables as Head Constables, in a phased manner, stretching over a period of five years from 1992-1993. The upgradation of post was ordered to be done in a phased manner as below:- Appointment Date (upto) Upgradation Year No. of Gr.II posts to be upgraded as Gr.I posts No. of Gr.I posts to be upgraded as HC posts 31.12.1997 1992-93 9000 500 31.01.1978 1993-94 4000 700 31.12.1980 1994-95 4000 700 31.08.1984 1995-96 4000 800 Total 21,000 2,700 (b) Upgradation would be done once in a year in a cadre. Promotion to the upgraded post would be based on the prescribed date of entry. The Government resolved to dispense with the direct recruitment of men as Grade I Police Constables and making Grade I as a promotion post. There was no automatic upgradation as Grade I or Head Constable as per this Government Order. (ii) G.O. Ms. No. 2107 Home (Pol. V) Department dated 24 December 1992:- The Government issued this order for granting promotion to the Grade II police Constables as Grade I police Constable without conducting the prescribed test. It was done as a special case. (iii) G.O. Ms. No. 807, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 18 July 1994:- The Government by way of this order, permitted the Director General of Police to promote Grade II Police Constables as Grade I Police Constables without conducting test. (iv) G.O. Ms. No. 1101 Home (Pol. V) Department dated 21 July 1995:- The Government, as per this Order, resolved to appoint those Grade II Police Constables appointed up to 31 December 1980 and who have completed 15 years of service but have not studied up to VIII standard by upgradation as Police Constable Grade I. The direction was to relax the educational qualification. V) Department dated 21 July 1995:- The Government, as per this Order, resolved to appoint those Grade II Police Constables appointed up to 31 December 1980 and who have completed 15 years of service but have not studied up to VIII standard by upgradation as Police Constable Grade I. The direction was to relax the educational qualification. There were 1400 additional posts of Grade II police constables selected for upgradation. (v) G.O. Ms. No. 844 Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 3 June 1997:- The Government, by way of this order, directed that the Grade II Police Constables who have completed 10 years of service would be promoted as Grade I Police Constables. Similarly, those who have completed a total period of 15 years of service as Grade I Police Constables would be promoted as Head Constable. (vi) G.O. Ms. No. 937, Home (Pol. III) Department, dated 21 July 1998:- (a) The Government directed that the Head Constables who had completed 10 years of service in that rank and had a total period of 25 years would be made Special Sub Inspector of Police subject to the condition that there was no punishment imposed on them in the preceding 5 years period and that they should not be facing charges in the departmental proceedings or criminal case. There is a further stipulation that the policemen should qualify as per the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 368 P & AR Department dated 18 October 1993. (b) The Government, as a one time measure, directed that 469 Grade I Police Constables recruited in the year 1974 would be promoted as Head Constable by relaxing the requirement of 25 years of total service subject to their having completed 10 years of service as Head Constable. The Government further directed that promotion panel should be prepared every year with 1 June of the relevant year as the crucial date. As per the Government Order, Range Promotion Boards would send the recommendations to the Director General of Police who in turn would send it to the Government. The Government would issue orders in July. It was ordered that the Special Sub Inspector of Police after such upgradation would become regular Sub Inspector of Police only when they qualify the prescribed tests. (vii) G.O. Ms. No. 13 Home (Pol. The Government would issue orders in July. It was ordered that the Special Sub Inspector of Police after such upgradation would become regular Sub Inspector of Police only when they qualify the prescribed tests. (vii) G.O. Ms. No. 13 Home (Pol. V) Department dated 6 June 2010:- The Government, by way of this order, directed upgradation of 2589 Grade II Police Constables appointed as on 1 November 1984, as Grade I Police Constables to be advanced to 25 July 1995 instead of 22 July 1997. Similarly, upgradation of 2589 Grade I Police Constables as Head Constables was advanced to 25 July 2000 in the place of 22 July 2002. (viii) G.O. Ms. No. 15 Home (Pol. V) Department dated 7 January 2010:- (a) The Government, by way of this order, delegated the powers to the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police to upgrade Grade II Police Constables as Grade I Police Constable on completion of 10 years of service from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of ten years and to upgrade Grade I Police Constables as Head Constables on completion of 5 years of service in the rank of Grade I Police Constable from the 1st of the month succeeding the date of completion of 5 years. Similarly, the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Commissioner of Police were empowered to upgrade as Special Sub Inspector of Police those who have completed 25 years of service overall and 10 years of service as Head Constables from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 25 years of service. The upgradations were given only to those who could not be promoted to the higher posts for want of vacancies. (b) The Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 15 dated 7 January 2010 was issued pursuant to the recommendation made by the Third Police Commission. 10. There was neither automatic upgradation on completion of a fixed period of service nor giving retrospective effect to the upgradation. 11. The Government Orders must contain a clear indication for giving it retrospective operation. It would not be possible to give an interpretation to the Government Orders by treating it as one giving retrospective effect, unless there is a clear recital with regard to such retrospectivity. 11. The Government Orders must contain a clear indication for giving it retrospective operation. It would not be possible to give an interpretation to the Government Orders by treating it as one giving retrospective effect, unless there is a clear recital with regard to such retrospectivity. There is no question of bringing the theory of deemed retrospective operation of a Government Order, when the relevant order is crystal clear that the intention is only to give effect prospectively. The interpretative process could not be undertaken to give a different meaning or effect to the Government Orders. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Shankar Law Soni & Anr., 2010(3) Scale 774 , observed that a decision to grant a certain concession or a certain benefit and the conditions for their grant are a matter for the administrators alone and the court should not interfere in the matter on the premise that it was of the opinion that some of the conditions imposed were not justified. 13. The policemen are claiming promotion as Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable and Special Sub Inspector of Police, immediately on completion of 10, 15 and 25 years of service. There was no indication in any of the Government Orders, more particularly in G.O. Ms. No. 15, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 7 January 2010 to claim deemed upgradation or retrospective upgradation. The policemen are interpreting the Government Orders as if there was a decision in their favour to grant retrospective upgradation by counting the entire service, right from the initial entry. The Government made it very clear in the relevant orders referred to above that in order to claim upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police, policemen must have completed 10 years of service in the rank of Head Constable. The policemen wanted the Government Orders to be interpreted in such a way that upon completing a fixed period, they would get upgradation as Grade I Constable automatically and thereafter, as Head Constable and ultimately as Special Sub Inspector of Police. No such indication is found in any of the Government Orders extracted above. We are therefore of the view that the appellants are correct in their contention that the writ court committed a fundamental error while interpreting the Government Orders and the same resulted in allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents. 14. No such indication is found in any of the Government Orders extracted above. We are therefore of the view that the appellants are correct in their contention that the writ court committed a fundamental error while interpreting the Government Orders and the same resulted in allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents. 14. We fully concur with the views expressed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in its order in R.A. (MD) Nos. 70 of 205 etc. batch. 15. The intra court appeals filed by the State are allowed. The connected appeals filed by the policemen are dismissed. No costs.