- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 22 April 2025
- Bench
- R. Suresh Kumar, A.D.Maria Clete
- Case no.
- WA 276/2023
Follow Madras High CourtFollow R. Suresh KumarFollow A.D.Maria Clete
Judgment
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 24.08.2021 made in W.P.No.30089 of 2017.
¶2Before the Writ Court, the respondent N.Vijayachandran, sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 16.03.2017 on the file of the second respondent therein, who is the second appellant herein, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents therein to include the respondent's name in the appropriate place in the select list for the year 1992-93 along with his batch-mates recruited in the year 1992-93 with due seniority and award all consequential service benefits.
¶3The said writ petition was allowed through the impugned order dated 24.08.2021.
¶4We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, who, after getting instructions by verifying the records, has fairly stated before this Court that insofar as this respondent is concerned, he might be entitled to get the seniority along with his batch-mates of the year 1992-93. However, the fact remains that, since he has not worked in the promoted post for all these years, such benefits, if at all given, based on which, if service benefits are concerned, such benefits can be conferred upon him notionally without any monetary benefits, as he has not admittedly worked in the promoted position.
¶5We have also heard Mr.M.S.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, who has made an attempt that the respondent once became eligible and is entitled to get seniority on par with his batch-mates of the year 1992-93, consequently, he is entitled to get all service benefits, including monetary benefits.
¶6We have considered the said submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides.
¶7As has been pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, that though the respondent would be entitled to claim seniority along with his batch-mates of the year 1992-93, the fact remains that he had not been given enlistment along with his batch-mates in the year 1992-93 and only belatedly he got it and because of which, admittedly, he has not worked for several years and also in the promoted position. Therefore, if at all he is entitled to get seniority from the year 1992-93 along with his batch-mates, the service benefits could be conferred on him only notionally and in this context, monetary benefits, that is back pay, cannot be claimed by the respondent/writ petitioner.
¶8In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal with the following orders: That the impugned order is to be sustained, accordingly, it is sustained. However, we make it clear that the service benefits, pursuant to the seniority going to be conferred on the respondent along with his batchmates of the year 1992-93, can only be notional and no monetary benefits can be claimed by him.
¶9With these modifications, the order passed by the learned Judge, which is impugned herein, is sustained and approved. By thus, the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J)
22.04.2025 drm To:
¶1The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 2.
¶2The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND A.D.MARIA CLETE
, J.
(drm)
22.04.2025
Case details
Parties and counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.04.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE 1. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai – 2. 2. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District. .. Appellant Vs. N.Vijayachandran .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order made in W.P.No.30089 of 2017 dated 24.08.2021. For the Appellant : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader For the Respondent : Mr.M.S.Soundararajan
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.