IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.2.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.43088 of 2006 BABU [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI CITY 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI 4 [ RESPONDENTS ] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in RC.No.Estt.V(1)/1032/90803/2006, dated 24.10.2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner as Head Constable with effect from 29.5.1998 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24.10.2006 and to direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the petitioner, as a head constable, with effect from 29.5.1998, with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been promoted as a head constable (temporary), on 29.5.1998, along with certain other police personal, namely, Kannan, Vijayan, Sasithar, and Sampathkumar. Even though the promotion of the four other persons had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regularised, as head constables (regular), on 30.6.1999, the promotion of the petitioner had been regularised only from 31.7.2000. No valid reasons were available for the respondents to regularise the promotion of the petitioner, as a head constable (regular), belatedly. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, no proper reasons had been stated for treating the petitioner differently. When all the relevant factors are similar in nature, no proper reasons are shown for regularising the promotion of the petitioner, as a head constable (regular), only on 31.7.2000, even though the other similarly placed persons had been regularised in the promoted post, on 30.6.1999, itself. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had furnished the following particulars by way of a communication, dated 28.1.2011, in Rc.No.Estt.V(1)/1147/ 106458/2006, from the first respondent. HC 12202 HC 12271 HC12232 HC12191 HC12190 Babu Kannan Vijayan Sasithar Sampath (petitioner) (Junior) (Junior) (Batchmate -kumar (Batchmate) Date of 2.2.1968 18.5.1962 8.5.1969 28.3.1967 4.5.1967 Birth Date of Enlistment8.9.1988 19.12.1988 17.11.1988 8.9.1988 8.9.1988 Date of promotion 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 4.8.1995 as Gr IPC Date of promotion as HC (Ty)29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998 29.5.1998 Date of promotion as HC(Regular)31.7.2000.30.6.1999.30.6.1999.30.6.1999.30.6.1999 Date of completion of probation30.7.2002 12.7.2001 24.6.2000 8.8.2001 30.6.2001 AN AN AN AN AN 5. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 24.10.2006, and to direct the respondents to regularise the promotion of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner on par with the other similarly placed persons, along with the consequential service and other monetary benefits that would be due to him. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI CITY, CHENNAI-600 008 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI-4 1 cc To Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate, SR.11372 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.11334 Writ Petition No.43088 of 2006 DM (CO) RH (1.3.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/