IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 11527 of 2000(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.S.PUSHKARAN, S/O. SANKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, H.C.E. 3475, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL UNIT. BY ADV. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED MR.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALWAYE. GOVERNMENT PLEADERBY MR.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.18912/2000 IN OP. NO.11527/2000 CLOSED 15/06/2009 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ERO-84/98 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 28.9.98. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-21619/98/ER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 6.3.2000. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.O. 127/89/ER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 18.3.2000. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 11527 of 2000 V --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while he was in service and working as Head Constable, has approached this Court preferring the above writ petition with the following prayers namely, to call for the records leading to Ext.P2 by which the petitioner's request for earlier promotion and higher ranking was declined and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable from 28.5.1990 and A.S.I. from 28.9.1998, the date on which his juniors were promoted as Head Constables and ASIs. There is also a prayer for a direction to assign his seniority as 829-A in between the two other Head Constables. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order is illegal as he was not granted due promotion considering his seniority. The petitioner has already retired from service. 2. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was provisionally promoted as Head Constable as per the order dated 14.10.1991 mentioned in the counter. According to the third respondent, OP NO.11527 of 2000 :-2-: he was not promoted as Head Constable in 1990 according to his ranking in the seniority list as he earned a punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per D.O.No.127/89 dated 18.3.89 of the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, Aluva. Therefore, the petitioner's immediate junior was promoted as Head Constable and thus, he became senior in the category of Head Constable. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner was awarded a punishment of barring of increment for two years without cumulative effect as per order dated 18.3.1989 and he along with 18 others were superseded for promotion as Head Constable(GE) in 1990 not for the reason that the Departmental proceedings initiated against him were pending disposal at that time. It is also pointed out that the date of promotion as Head Constable with effect from 31.3.1991 assigned to him was correct and he is not eligible for Higher Ranking in the seniority list as requested for by him. It is the further case of the third respondent that there were similar supersessions for promotion as Head Constables based on specific punishment awarded during the previous as well as subsequent years as well. According to the third respondent, the petitioner was not promoted as Head OP NO.11527 of 2000 :-3-: constable since there was punishment against him and this was done as per the provisions contained in G.O.(MS) No.95/72/Home dated 17.6.1972. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 promotion order was issued on 28.9.1998 and the barring of increment is a minor punishment and that too was only temporary and there is no objection for granting his promotion on a later stage. I am unable to accept the above contention. 5. In fact, the petitioner was awarded with punishment and therefore, he was not promoted as Head Constable in accordance with his seniority and therefore, he was superseded. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it will amount to giving retrospective effect to his promotion, which once denied at appropriate time due to the punishment awarded to him. In effect, the petitioner indirectly prays to ignore the punishment inflicted against him, which cannot be allowed. OP NO.11527 of 2000 :-4-: In the result, there is no merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ OP NO.11527 of 2000 :-5-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.11527 OF 2000 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: 15-6-2009 OP NO.11527 of 2000 :-6-: