SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Police promotin case full bench order THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.PARESH UPADHYAY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019, 1813, 1814,1815 of 2015, 1193 of 2016, 1246, 1247 of 2016, WA No.103,

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS  RESERVED ON:  28.01.2022

    PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON:  04.02.2022         

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.PARESH UPADHYAY

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH

 

AND THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

 

W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019, 1813, 1814,1815 of 2015, 1193 of 2016, 1246, 1247 of 2016, WA No.103, 104,105, 106, 107, 108, 1530, 1741 of 2017,1938,

2158 of 2018, 1641, 3319, 3331, 4057 of 2019, 714, 715 of 2020, 511,

2873, 2881, 2882, 2883,2877, 2879,2880, 2874, 2875,2878, 2885, 2876,

2889 of 2021 WA(MD).Nos.840/2013,1286/2016,841/2013,704/2015,315/2016, 607,676,677,679,869, 1296 /2016, 816,820,946,971,989/2017,

137,445,446/2018, 854,855/2015, 453, 498, 512, 513, 515, 516, 517,518,

499,500,501,502,503,504,505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511,514,587,588,590,591,592,593,594,595, 596,597,589,598/2018, 1256,1245,1386,1387,1422,1425,1431,1441,1442,1444,1446,

1447,1462,1463,1554,1555,1556,1557,1558, 1559,1574,1575,1583,1584,

1585,1586/2019,2027,2028,2029,2030,2031,2032,2033,2034,2035,

2036,2037,2038,2039,2040,2041,2042,2043,2044,2045,2046,2047,

2048,2049,2050, 2051, 2053, 2052, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2058,

2059,2060,2061,2062,2063,2064,2065,2066, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070, 2071,2073,2072,2074,2075,2076,2077,2078, 2080, 2079, 2083, 2081,2085,2082,2086,2084,2087,2088,2089,2090, 2091,2092,2093,2096,2094,2095,2097,2099,2098/2021,

WP Nos.21467 of 2007, 27749 of 2010, 21214, 23000, 26638, 26639, 26640,

30057 of 2011, 1840, 3937, 14771, 17768, 17769, 18205, 18229, 29040 of 2012, 8133, 22011, 33344 of 2013, 14580, 23434, 23435, 23436, 23437,

23438,30454,32639 of 2014

867,3472, 5607,5885,5886,5887,5888, 8396, 26594,29905 of 2015, 39259 of 2016, 17976,17977, 26615 of 2017, 2183,2184,14513, 20032/2018,  314,

322, 317, 324,328,330,333,5303,5310,23864/2019,

WP(MD).Nos.9704 to 9713 of 2014, 11126, 11167, 11168, 13311, 16224,

20903,21234/2014, 1109, 9863, 9864, 12333, 13295, 14250,

14251,14252,14253/2015, 677, 687, 742, 745, 746, 747, 750, 678, 679, 680,682,683,685,686,688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696,

697,698,699,700,743,744,748, 749, 684, 681, 1899, 1900, 1901,3509,4547,3690,3691,3692,3693,3694,3695,4990,5630,5631,

5632,5633,7681,7930,8114,8427,8599,17078,17079,17080,17081,18485,

18543,18762,18763/2016, 3261, 4238, 6681, 20349, 20404,

21296,21430,21435,21437,21998, 21999/2017, 2519, 2520, 2521, 9977,

15342,15360,15361,15362, 16892, 16893, 16894, 17089,

22467,23651,23741,23759,23766,23775,24691,24763/2018,1733,1771,

1772,1773,1774,2139,2870,10492, 10493, 10494, 10495, 10630, 13075,13114,13259,13297,13276,13298,13951,14569,15177,15430, 15910,16615/2019,

Revw(MD).Nos.99,100,101,102,103 of 2014 and Rev.Appl.No.167 of 2021 and

CMP No.23767/2019, CMP Nos.15296, 16067, 16068, 16069/2016, 1818, 1819,

1820, 1821, 1822, 1823,20177, 22220/2017, 15550, 16719/2018, 11161, 21317,

21384, 25431/2019, 9771,9776/2020, 2015, 19310, 19312, 19313, 19319, 19315,

19314, 19317, 19316, 19320,19326,19328,19334,19337,19308, 19363, 19309, 19311, 19424/2021

CMP(MD).Nos.8765,4144,4340,4381,4406,5196,8915,5669,/2016, 5678,6381,6557/2017, 704, 2662, 2663, 2673, 2972, 2974, 2976,

 2978,2980,2982,2984,2986, 2988, 2990, 2992,2994, 2996, 2998, 3000,3002,3004,3006,3008,3010, 3011, 3012, 3007, 3009, 3001,2997, 2999,2993,2995,2989,2991,2985, 2987, 2981, 2983, 2977, 2979,

2979,2975,3003,3005,2973,3312,3313, 3314, 3315, 3316, 3317,3318, 3319,

3320,3321,3322,3324,3325,3326, 3327, 3328, 3329,

3330,3637,3323/2018,10688,10800,11505,11503, 11590,11609,11610, 11614,

11615, 11652,11655, 11656, 11666, 11667, 11669, 11670,11658, 11821, 11820,

11823, 12455, 12457, 12460,12463, 12465,12469, 12522, 12569, 12572, 12574,

12576, 12578,12577,12575, 12573, 12570, 12568,12521, 12458,12462, 12464,12468,12456/2019, 9453,2028, 9457,9459,9462, 9463,9464, 9465, 9468,9469,9470,9472, 9473,9476,9478, 9479,9494,9585, 9495, 9493, 9486,9489,9485,9488, 9491,9502,9507,9510, 9510,  9514, 9518,9522,9525,9527,9594,9497 , 9501,9503,9498, 9511, 9506, 9515,9524,9519,9516,9513,9505, 9508,9520,9517,9512, 9504,9526,9528,9530,9531,9532,9533,9534, 9535,9536, 9538, 9540,9542,9546,9547,9552,9553,9554,9555,9561, 9559, 9572,9574, 9565,9567,9539,9569,9566,9571,9576,9577,9545, 9544,9549,

9548,9556,9558,9550,9573,9551,9575,9560,9562,9581 9580,9564, 9563, 9578,

9579,9570,9568,9590,9591,9593,9584,9586,9589,9595, 9603,9602,9604,9587,9588,9607,9605,9611,9612/2021 WMP No.22868/2017, 38658/2016,6060,6027/2019

WMP(MD).Nos.5065,5066,5067,5068,6370,6630,5468,5467,5466, 5465,13428/2016,2599,16610/2017,2476,2477,19879,2700, 2701, 2702,

9122,13839,14917,15038/2018, 2167, 9777, 10455, 11022,12635,13248/2019

—

Cause title in W.A.No.3748 of 2019

  1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Secretary to Government,      Home Department, Fort St. George,      Chennai 600 009.

  1. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore,      Chennai 600 004.
  2. The Superintendent of Police,

District Police Office, Cuddalore District                ..Appellants

Vs.

C.Srinivasan                                   …Respondent

Prayer in WA No.3748 of 2019:   Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 05.09.2014 made in writ petition No.24109 of 2014.

For Appellants       : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar

in   W.A.No.3748 of 2019                Special Government Pleader

 

For Respondent     : Mr.V.Ravikumar

in W.A.No.3748 of 2019

 

COMMON ORDER N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J.

The Hon’ble First Bench of this Court while dealing with

an Appeal in Writ Appeal No.3748 of 2019 found that there is an apparent conflict between the judgments of co-equal Benches. The

Hon’ble First Bench found that the later Division Bench in The Principal Secretary to Government vs. V. Ramachandran and others in Review Application Nos. 70 to 79 etc. of 2015 and batch, through judgment dated 22.3.2017, (hereinafter referred to as V.Ramachandran case) had disagreed with the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in The Government of Tamil Nadu (represented by Home Secretary) vs. V.Samy and others in

W.A.(MD) No. 1506/2011 etc., batch through judgment dated

17.06.13 (hereinafter referred to as V.Samy case) and hence, came to a conclusion that the matter must be referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Accordingly, by an order dated 20.12.2019, the Hon’ble First Bench framed the following questions to be referred to the Larger Bench :-

  1. As to whether the judgment dated 22.03.2017 in the case of V. Ramachandran (supra), that has taken a view contrary to the earlier judgment in V. Samy (supra) deserves to be resolved by a Larger Bench, as a direct conflict has been noticed by the subsequent Division Bench on the ground that the Government orders had been misconstrued while delivering the earlier judgement.
  2. Whether the law has been laid down correctly in the case of V.Ramachandran (supra), or in the earlier decision in V.Samy (supra).
  3. It is consequent upon the above order, the Full Bench was constituted and a direction was given to tag all the connected cases and to post the same before the Full Bench. Pursuant to the same, the Full Bench heard this matter through video conferencing mode.
  4. Before going into the questions referred to this Full Bench, it will be more appropriate to take note of certain background facts in order to give a complete picture. The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Special Rules, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) governs the appointment, promotion, fixation of seniority, pay and allowance etc. of the categories of officers falling under Rule 2 of the Rules. In the present case, we are dealing with the constabulary force and the source of their appointment and promotion is dealt with under Rule 2 of the Rules read with Annexure 1 of the Rules.
  5. All those falling under the category of constables fall under category 8 in Class – 1 and those falling under the category of Head Constables, fall under category 7 under Class – 1, of Rule 2 of the Rules. A careful reading of Annexure 1 shows that persons falling under the category of constables are selected by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer and it is dealt with under category 8 of Annexure 1. Insofar as Head Constables are concerned, it is a promotion post from the post of constable, which is the feeder post and it is dealt with under category 7 of Annexure 1. The post of Head Constable is also a feeder post for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police provided that the concerned Head Constable clears the relevant examination. Thus, the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is filled up through direct recruitment and promotion from the post of Head Constable in the ratio of 60:40.
  6. The Rules do not anywhere categorise constables as Grade II and Grade I constables. This seems to have evolved more out of practice in vogue for the last several years. By means of certain policy decisions and issuing Government Orders (hereinafter referred as G.Os), Grade I Police Constable is treated as a promotion post for which Grade II Constable is the feeder post. Similarly, Grade

I Police Constable post is treated as a feeder post for promotion to the post of Head Constable.

  1. It is quite surprising that all these changes have not been incorporated in the service rules which has a statutory force by virtue of it being issued by the Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 309 of Constitution of India. The Division Bench of this Court took this factor into consideration and while passing orders in W.A (MD) Nos. 539 to 541 of 2009, dated 8.12.2009, directed the Government to make necessary amendment in the service rules and till date, the service rules have not been amended. Fortunately, it has not been put to challenge till now and hence this Full Bench does not want to delve deep into this issue and we expect the state Government to carry out the necessary

amendments in the service rules. It is in this background, we have to consider the various Government Orders and Government letters brought to our notice in the course of hearing and assimilate its purport and thereafter, answer the questions referred to this Full Bench.

  1. The Director General of Police through letter dated

4.09.1992 reported to the Government of Tamil Nadu that nearly 80% of the constabulary have to retire even without a single promotion. Therefore,  in order to ameliorate the situation and in order to remove the stagnation, a recommendation was proposed suggesting upgradation of about 17000 posts of Grade II Police Constables as Grade I Police Constables and 1770 posts of Grade I Police Constables as Head Constables. The Government on receipt of the proposal decided to de-congest the stagnation and provide some sort of motivation to the constabulary and accordingly, issued G.O.Ms. No. 1681, dated 12.10.1992 and decided to upgrade 21000 posts of Grade II Police Constables to Grade I Police Constables and 2700 posts of Grade I Police Constables to Head Constables, in a phased manner stretched over a period of 5 years starting from 1992-1993 onwards. The manner in which it was proposed to be done was also indicated in the Government Order. It is to be noted that no relaxation or exemption was given from the educational

qualification required and the tests to be undergone.

  1. In continuation to the above Government Order, G.O.Ms.

No. 2107, dated 24.12.1992 was issued by the Government. This Government Order slightly relaxed the test qualification as a special case for the Grade II Police Constables, who were upgraded as Grade I Police Constables and are falling under the 1992- 1993 batch.

  1. In continuation to the above Government Order, G.O.Ms. No. 807, dated 18.07.1994, came to be issued and this Government order further relaxed the test qualification for all Grade II Police Constables, who were upgraded as Grade I Police Constables, across the board.
  2. The above two G.Os only relaxed the test qualification and insofar as the educational qualification is concerned, it was kept intact and the Grade II Police Constables had to fulfil the educational qualification failing which, they were not eligible to be upgraded as Grade I Police Constables. This situation continued till 1994-1995 and as a result, 1400 Grade II Police Constables who had put in nearly 15 years of service were not able to be considered for the upgradation. The educational qualification that was required was Third Form or 8th
  3. O.Ms. No.1101 issued by the Government on 21.7.1995, addressed the above issue. The Government decided to relax the educational qualification also for the Grade II Police Constables, who were appointed upto 31.12.1980 and had completed 15 years of service. The Grade II Police Constables falling under this bracket were directed to be upgraded as Grade I Police Constables inspite of not possessing the educational qualification. Thus, 1400 Grade II Police Constables were benefited out of this Government Order. For this purpose, 1400 Grade I Police Constable posts were created and the resultant vacancies in Grade I Police Constable was directed not to be filled up and to be disbanded forthwith.
  4. The most crucial Government Order came to be issued in

G.O.Ms. No. 844 on 3.6.1997. A careful reading of this Government Order shows that the earlier G.Os mentioned supra were implemented and upgradations took place and many constables were benefited. The Hon’ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly made an announcement on 25.4.1997 to the effect that those who are working as Grade II Police Constables for 10 years will be promoted as Grade I Police Constables and those who are working as Grade I Police Constables for 15 years will be promoted as Head Constables. This benefit was specifically made applicable to the male constables. In continuation to the statement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the Government Order came to be issued. It provided that those who had served for 10 years as Grade II Police

Constables were directed to be promoted as Grade I Police

Constables and those who had served for 15 years as Grade I Police Constables were directed to be promoted as head Constables. This was the first time, a time bound upgradation scheme was brought into force upto the rank of Head Constable.

  1. The fourth paragraph in G.O.Ms. No. 844 dated 3.6.1997 was replaced/ amended by the letter of the Secretary to Government, dated 7.1.1998 issued to the Director General of Police and other officers. Thereby, those who had served for 10 years as Grade II Police Constables were directed to be promoted as Grade I

Police Constables and those who had served for 5 years as Grade I Police Constables were directed to be promoted as Head constables.

The promotion was directed to be given in 4 phases starting from

1997-98 upto 2000-2001 in the following manner:

Year of Post Postgraduation Strength of

Constables

 Year to be promoted as

Head

Constables

 Total Service period in the year of promotion
1992-1993 9000(31.12.75) 1997-1998 5 years as Grade

I Constable. Total Service period 22 years
1993-1994 4000 (31.1.78) 1998-1999 5 years as Grade

I Constable Total
Year of Post Postgraduation Strength of

Constables

 Year to be promoted as

Head

Constables

 Total Service period in the year of promotion
      Service Period 21 years
1994-1995 4000(31.12.80) 1999-2000 5 years as Grade

I Constable Total Service period 20 years
1995-1996 4000(31.08.84) 2000-2001 5 years as Grade

I Constable. Total Service period 16 years

14.We find that the amendment to the  Government Order has been made through a letter issued by the Secretary to Government. It is quite incomprehensible as to how an amendment to the Government Order can be carried out through an internal letter circulated by the Secretary to Government. Fortunately nobody has questioned the letter dated 7.1.1998 and it has been acted upon and many were also benefited. We therefore do not propose to go into the validity of the letter dated 7.1.1998 at this stage. This is more so since this Full Bench is constituted to specifically answer the questions referred to us and not to go into the validity of this letter. Therefore we leave it at that.

  1. For the first time, upgradation was introduced from the post of Head Constable to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as SSI) through G.O.Ms. No. 937, dated 21.7.1998. The Government of Tamil Nadu took into consideration the recommendation made by the Director General of Police and decided to grant a special benefit by creating a post called SSI. The Government order itself makes it clear that the upgradation to this post will not be construed as a promotion. Constables working in all the three wings viz. Taluk Police, Armed Reserved Police and Tamil Nadu Special Police and who have put in a total of 25 years of service out of which they have served 10 years as Head constables alone were made entitled for upgradation as SSI. The G.O. prescribed the following procedures to be followed:
    1. The crucial date for preparation of panel for

SSI was fixed as 1st of June every year.

  1. The pay and allowances of SSI will be on par with Sub-Inspectors.
  2. The list will be prepared and forwarded to the Government every year for issuance of final orders by the month of July in that year.
  3. The duties to be assigned to SSI will be decided by the Director General of Police and
  4. Even those holding the post of SSI must clear the tests to be promoted as Sub-Inspector and once they are promoted as Sub-Inspector, the post of SSI held by them will automatically lapse.
  1. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 13 dated 6.1.2010 whereby the grievance of 2589 Grade II Police Constables who were appointed on 1.11.1984 and were sent for training belatedly, was redressed. Their upgradation to the post of

Grade I Police Constables was advanced to 25.7.1995 and as Head Constables it was advanced to 25.7.2000. This was done to bring them on par with the others who were appointed during the same year and were sent for training ahead of these batch of 2589 constables.

  1. The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to delegate powers to the superior level police officers for upgradation of constables to the post of Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable and SSI. Accordingly G.O. Ms. No.15 dated 7.1.2010 was issued and by virtue of this G.O, the government delegated powers to the

Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police to upgrade Grade

II Police Constables on completion of 10 years as Grade I Police

Constables and Grade I Police Constables on completion of 5 years as

Head Constables. The Government delegated the powers to Deputy

Inspector General of Police/Commissioners of Police to upgrade as SSIs those who have completed overall service of 25 years with 10 years of service in the post of Head Constable.

  1. On a careful reading of all the G.O.s, it can be seen that till the year 1996, the upgradation was ordered against fixed number of posts as specifically directed by the Government. Thereafter, time bound upgradation scheme was introduced upto the rank of Head Constable by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 844 dated 3.6.1997 and to the post of SSI by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 937, dated. 21.7.1998.
  2. With the above background, we will now consider the judgments of the two Division Benches which have been referred to this Full Bench.
  3. Heard Mr. K. V. Sajeev Kumar, Special Government

Pleader for the official respondents. This Court also heard Mr. K.K.

Ramakrishan, Mr. D. Saravanan, Mr. Rajaram, Mr.Bala and Daisy, Mr.

  1. Karthikeyan, Mr. Krishnakumar, Mr. Sivakumar, Mr. Raja and Mr. M. Ravi, Advocates appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other petitioners adopted their arguments.
  2. We will first consider the judgment of the Division bench in Samy case referred supra.
  3. Before getting into this case, certain proceedings that took place before this judgment was rendered by the Division Bench, requires mentioning.
  4. One Subbaiah Pandian had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1042 of 2003, which subsequently got transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 27036 of 2005 and he had sought for a direction to include his name in the list of Head Constable to make himself fit for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police by granting seniority in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 844, dated

3.6.1997. This Writ Petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge without going into the scope of G.O.Ms. NO 844 dated, 3.6.1997 took into consideration the seniority of the petitioner by relying upon Rule 25(b) of the Rules and allowed the Writ Petition. The Government took this order on Appeal in W.A. No. 500 of 2008. The Hon’ble First Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal by an order dated 16.6.2008 after giving a categoric finding that Rule 25(b) of the Rules will apply in determining the seniority in the given case and the Division Bench did not find any ground to interfere with the order passed in the Writ Petition by the Learned Single Judge.

  1. Thereafter, Thangapandian, Micheal Anthony and

Pauldurai filed individual Writ Petitions before the Madurai bench of Madras High Court and sought for seniority and to give them promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. All these Writ

Petitions were allowed. While allowing the Writ Petitions, the

Learned Single Judge had interpreted the order passed in W.A (MD)

No.500 of 2008 as if the claim was considered in terms of G.O.Ms. .No. 844, dated 3.6.1997.

  1. As against the order of the Learned Single Judge, W.A. (MD) Nos. 361, 364 and 367 of 2012 were filed. The Division Bench after taking into consideration all the Government orders held that the Hon’ble First Bench had allowed W.A.(MD) No. 500 of 2008 only by placing reliance upon Rule 25(b) of the Rules and the Hon’ble First Bench did not go into the scope of G.O.Ms. No 844, dated

3.6.1997. It was therefore held that the order passed by the Learned

Single Judge in the Writ Petitions by relying upon the order of the Hon’ble First Bench was not correct. The Division Bench also independently considered the case of each petitioner and found that it was in accordance with G.O.Ms. No 844, dated 3.6.1997 and accordingly,  all the Writ Appeals were allowed by an order dated 26.6.2012.

  1. The above three Writ petitioners filed Review Application (MD) Nos. 10 to 12 of 2013 in the Writ Appeals allowed by the Division Bench. When these Review Petitions were pending, another Division Bench took up for hearing a batch of Writ Appeals filed by the Government and certain private individuals in W.A.

(MD) Nos. 1506 of 2011 batch which is referred as V.Samy case. The Division Bench was dealing with cases where certain Writ Petitions were allowed and certain other writ petitions were dismissed on the very same issue. When this batch was heard by the Division Bench, order passed by the earlier Division Bench on 26.6.2012 on the very same issue was operating. There is no reference about the earlier order of the Division Bench anywhere in the judgment. It is not known as to whether it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Hence the Division Bench proceeded to hear the batch and by an order dated 17.6.2013, the Writ Appeals filed by the department were dismissed and the Writ Appeals filed by the private individuals (police personnel) was allowed. It will be relevant to extract the findings of the Division Bench hereunder:

“2. The very same issue was already considered by this Court in W.P.No. 27034 of 2005(T) dated 13.4.2006 with reference to G.O.Ms. No.844 Home Department, dated 3.6.1997 and allowed the writ petition, against which the very same respondents/Department preferred W.A.No.500 of 2008 and the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 16.6.2008. In the said writ appeal, the purport of Rule 25(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules was considered. In the said rule it is stated as follows:

“25(b) The transfer of a person from one class or category of the service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for the purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred, shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying the sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority”.

Thus it is evident that merely because a police person is transferred from one District to another District or from one Wing to another Wing, he will not lose his seniority.

  1. Conferment of promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years is bound to be given in terms of G.O.Ms. No.844 Home Department, dated 3.6.1997 andG.O.Ms.

No.937 Home Department, dated 21.7.1998. In G.O.Ms. No.15 Home Department, 7.1.2010 it was further ordered as follows:

“ (i) Grade -II Police Constables, who have not been promoted as Grade-I Police Constable for want of vacancies, may be upgraded as Grade-I Police Constables by the Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police concerned on completion of 10 years of qualifying service (in the post of Grade-II Police Constables) from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 10 years.

  • Grade-I Police Constables, who have not been promoted as Head Constables for want of vacancies may be upgraded as Head Constables by Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police concerned on completion of 5 years of qualifying service (in the post of Grade-I Police

Constable) from the 1st of the month succeeding the date of completion of 5 years.

  • The Constables, who have completed 25 years if service, out of which 10 years of service have been completed as Head Constables and not able to get regular promotion as Sub- Inspectors of Police may be given upgradation as Special Sub- Inspectors of Police from the first of the month succeeding the date of completion of 25 years of service by the respective Deputy Inspectors General of Police/Commissioners of Police.”
  1. From the above Government Orders it is evident thatactual service of five years as Head Constable is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub- Inspector of Police as they have been deemed to be promoted for the respective cadre of Head Constable on completion of five years as Grade -I PC(deemed upgradation) and ten years of service as Head

Constable from the date of deemed upgradation as Head Constables, provided 25 years of total service is available. The said Government Orders were also extended to several persons similarly placed and batch of cases were allowed by applying the said Government Orders. The only contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader in these writ appeals are even if the seniority of the police constable should be counted from the date of appointment, irrespective of the transfer to other Wing or District, one has to complete five years of service as Head Constable for getting promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police. The Government Order nowhere states that actual five years service in the cadre of Head Constable is mandatory.

  1. It is not in dispute that similarly placed persons were already given the benefit of promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of 25 years of total service, considering deemed upgradation of their posts and several persons retired from service were also given benefits, including revision of salary and pensionary benefits.
  2. In the light of the said undisputed facts respondents in W.A.(MD) Nos. 1506/2011, 107 to 111 and 368/2012 and appellants in W.A.(MD) Nos.1191 to 1203 of 2011 and 237, 238/2012 are also entitled to get similar benefits. Consequently, W.A.(MD) Nos. 1506/2011, 107 to 111 and 368/2012, filed by the

Department are dismissed and the orders of the learned single

Judge are confirmed. W.A.(MD) Nos.1191 to 1203 of 2011 and 237, 238/2012, filed by the Police Personnel, are allowed and the orders of the learned single Judge therein are set aside and the writ petitions therein  are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

  1. It is clear from the above findings that the order passed in Samy case is in variance with the findings of the earlier Division Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos.361,364 and 367 of 2012. In other words there were two conflicting orders on the same issue.
  2. The very same Division Bench thereafter took up the

Review Applications filed in Review Application (MD) Nos. 10 to 12 of 2013 for hearing. At the time when these Review Applications

were taken up for hearing, the concerned Division Bench was aware about the order passed in V.Samy case. On coming to know that the order passed in V.Samy case was in conflict with the earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A. (MD) Nos. 361,364 and 367 of 2012, it would have been more appropriate for the Division Bench to have acknowledged the conflicting views and the matter should have been referred to a Larger Bench for an authoritative

pronouncement. The Review Applications were taken up for hearing on 2.7.2013 and it was allowed. By virtue of allowing the Review Applications, the Division Bench had virtually overruled the judgment of a co-equal Bench in W.A. (MD) Nos. 361, 364 and 367 of 2012.

  1. The order passed in the Review Applications was taken on appeal before the Apex Court. However, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by an order dated 14.7.2014.
  2. Eventually certain Review Applications and Writ Appeals landed up before another Division Bench which is referred supra as

V.Ramachandran case. The Writ Appeals were filed against the orders passed in a batch of Writ Petitions and Review Applications were filed by the State Government against the dismissal of their

Writ Appeals while challenging the orders passed in a batch of Writ Petitions. At the time of hearing, the Division Bench was made aware about the earlier judgment passed in V. Samy case. The Division Bench makes it very clear in the order that they are disagreeing with the decision of the earlier Division Bench in V. Samy case. Once the Division Bench expressed its mind, judicial discipline warranted a request to be made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict. We do not propose to load this judgment with all the case laws on this point, since the law is too well settled. The legal proposition has been succinctly captured in [Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others] reported in  2013 (10) SCC 95 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

“7.This Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the field, which in the present case is Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] rendered by a three-Judge Bench. The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate courts. We hasten to clarify that if a coordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful efficacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Furthermore, there are some instances of decisions even of a Single Judge, which

having withstood the onslaughts of time have metamorphosed into high authority demanding reverence and adherence because of its vintage and following in contradistinction of the strength of the Bench. This is a significant characteristic of the doctrine of stare decisis. Tata Cellular [(1994) 6 SCC 651] has been so ubiquitously followed, over decades, in almost every case concerning government tenders and contracts that it has attained heights which dissuade digression by even a larger Bench. The law of precedence and of stare decisis is predicated on the wisdom and salubrity of providing a firmly founded law, without which uncertainty and ambiguity would cause consternation in society. It garners legal predictability, which simply stated, is an essential. Our research has revealed the existence of only one other threeJudge Bench decision which has dealt with this aspect of the law, namely, Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2008) 16 SCC 215] , which is in actuality an anthology of all previous decisions including Tata Cellular [(1994) 6 SCC 651] . The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law. Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments”.

  1. The co-equal Bench after disagreeing with the earlier

Division bench, proceeded to deal with the Review Applications and Writ Appeals and a common judgment was passed on 22.3.2017. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:

        “24. We are of the considered view that particularly in a matter like this where the employees claim certain service and monetary benefits under Government Orders, the same could be extended only prospectively and not with retrospective effect. Giving the Government Orders in the present case the retrospective effect, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, and rightly so in our view, would cause serious administrative hardship and huge expenditure to the public exchequer. We, therefore, reject the claim of the writ petitioners that applying the Government Orders with

retrospective effect to the date of their initial entry into the

Police Service, they are entitled for upgradation much earlier and therefore entitled for the attendant service and monetary benefits.

  1. It is found from the materials placed on record by the learned Special Government Pleader that all the writ petitioners were given the benefit of upgradation to the next level of promotion by taking into account their completion of the qualifying service in each level of rank as prescribed in the above Government Orders. The petitioners? claim for deemed

promotion to the rank of Police Constable Grade ? I by reckoning their qualifying service of 10 years in the rank of Grade ? II from the date of their initial appointment in service, further upgradation to the rank of Head Constable on completing the qualifying service of 5 years in Grade ? I and to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police by applying the G.O. No.15 with retrospective effect is unsustainable as the said Government Orders would operate only prospectively with effect from 07.01.2010.The petitioners could not claim promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector since they did not have the qualifying service of 10 years in the rank of Head Constable though they have the 25 years of total service. It is also to be noted that the benefit of upgradation to the post of Special Sub Inspector was introduced in the year 1998 only by G.O. No.937 dated 21.07.1998 and this Government Order will have its effect prospectively with effect from 21.07.1998 onwards. Further, the reliance placed on by the petitioners on G.O. No.15 dated 07.01.2010 to have the retrospective effect is also incorrect as the said Government Order was issued only for the purpose of delegating the powers to the Superintendents of Police/Deputy Inspectors General of Police/Commissioners of Police to grant upgradation for eligible police personnel.

  1. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioners, placing heavy reliance on the judgment dated 17.08.2013 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) Nos.1506 of 2011, etc. batch of cases, contended that the writ- petitioners, who are similarly placed persons like that of the respondents in the above writ appeal, are entitled for the relief prayed in the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the Division Bench categorically held that the actual service of 5 years in the rank of Head Constables is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police as they have been deemed to be promoted to the ranks viz. Police Constable Grade ? I and to Head Constable on completing the qualified service from the date of their initial appointment in Grade II Police Constable, provided they have completed 25 years of total service.
  2. We have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench.

The Division Bench after referring to the relevant part of G.O. No.15 dated 07.01.2010, in paragraph 4 held as follows:

  1. From the above Government Orders it is evident that actual service of five as Head Constable is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police as they have been deemed to be promoted for the respective cadre of Head Constable on completion of five years as Grade ? I PC (deemed upgradataion) and ten years of service as Head Constable from the date of deemed upgradation as Head Constable, provided 25 years of total service is available. The said Government Orders were also extended to several persons similarly placed and batch of cases were allowed by applying the said Government Orders. The only contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader in these writ appeals are even if the seniority of the police constable should be counted from the date of

appointment, irrespective of the transfer to the other Wing or

District, one has to complete five years of service as Head

Constable for getting promotion as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The Government Order nowhere states that actual five years in the cadre of Head Constable is mandatory.?

The Division Bench held that to claim upgradation/promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector all that is required to be fulfilled by a Police Constable is to have 25 years of service from the date of his initial appointment and that the qualifying service of five years as Head Constable is not required for giving upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police. We respectfully disagree with the decision of the Division Bench. The Government Orders, viz. G.O. No.1681 dated 12.10.1992, G.O. No.844 dated

03.06.1997, G.O. No.937 dated 21.07.1998 and G.O. No.15 dated 07.01.2011 are plain and crystal clear on the scheme of grant of upgradation/promotion to the Police Constables. The Government Orders, in the first instance, will have prospective effect only, i.e. from the date of their issuance.The said Government Orders also prescribed a specific period of ? qualifying service? in a particular rank to gain the benefit of upgradation/promotion to the next level. Under the said

Government Orders, a Grade-II Police Constable on completion of 10 years of service in the rank of Grade II and who has not been promoted to Grade-I Police Constable for want of vacancies is eligible to claim upgradation to Police Constable Grade-I. A

Police Constable Grade-I on completion of his 5-year service in

Grade-I is eligible to claim upgradationas Head Constable. A Police Constable who has completed 25 years of service, out of which 10 years of service as Head Constable, and not able to get regular promotion of Sub Inspector of Police, is eligible to claim upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police. When the Government Order is specific in prescribing 10 years of service in the rank of Head Constable out of 25 years of service, without fulfilling the condition of 10 years of service in the rank of Head

Constable, a Police Constable could not claim upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The Government Orders, in our considered view, do not envisage ?deemed upgradation?.

  1. The above Division Bench judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here also, the writ petitioners claim that when a batch of police constables have already reaped the benefit of upgradation and attendant service and monetary benefits, through the orders of this Court, the Government cannot deny the same benefit to them. We have already held that the since the Government Orders in question cannot have retrospective effect and that the writ petitioners cannot claim that the benefit of ?deemed promotion?by reckoning the date of their initial entry into Police Service to claim the promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police much earlier.
  2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the Government Orders operating the field and materials placed before us by the learned Special Government Pleader, we are of the categorical view that the writ petitioners cannot claim

?deemed promotion? to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police and the attendant service and monetary benefits. We, therefore, left with no other option but to respectfully disagree with the decision rendered by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in similar batch of writ petitions.

  1. We wish to point out that we passed the common order dated 23.04.2015 in W.A. (MD) No.348 to 357 of 2015 batch of cases on the submission made by the learned counsel that the issue involved is covered by the earlier Division Bench decision dated 17.06.2013 made in W.A. (MD) No.1506 of 2011. The niceties of the legal issues and the real import and purport of the Government Orders were omitted to be brought to our notice. We reiterate that it was only on the ground and in this manner that several Police Constables, most them retired from service long back, reaped monetary benefits that was not legitimately due to them under the Government Orders concerned. In such circumstances, we cannot blindfold ourselves by the earlier Division Bench decision to allow the claim of the present writ petitioners. We are thoroughly convinced in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Government has made out sustainable grounds for reviewing our earlier common order dated 23.04.2015 in W.A. (MD) No.348 to 357 of 2015”.
  2. The above judgment in Ramachandran case is in conflict with the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in V.Samy case mainly on three aspects and they are:
    1. The Government order does not have any

retrospective effect

  1. The Government Order never intended to grant any

deemed promotion or deemed upgradation and

  1. To claim for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police, 10 years of service in the rank of Head Constable is mandatory.
  1. Having culled out the main areas of disagreement between the two conflicting judgments, we proceed to answer the first question that has been referred to the Full Bench as follows:

The judgment in V.Ramachandran case has taken a contrary view from the earlier judgment in V.

Samy case and the conflict requires to be resolved by a larger bench for giving an authoritative pronouncement.

  1. The upgradation scheme was introduced in the year 1992 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 1681, dated 12.10.1992. The object of bringing such a scheme into effect is to remove the stagnation

among Police Constables and ensure that they get

upgradation/promotion to a higher grade in a time bound manner. As held by us supra, the Government Orders that were issued upto G.O.Ms No. 844, dated 3.6.1997, dealt with the upgradation against fixed number of posts as specifically directed by the Government. The scope of all those Government Orders have already been dealt with in detail. The usage of the term “retrospective operation” in this case sounds like a misnomer. The Government Orders came to be implemented from the year 1992 and obviously it will benefit only those Constables who had joined the service even before the Government Order was issued. It goes without saying that it will only apply to those Constables who were in service as on the date when the Government Orders came into force and only those who satisfy the requirements under the Government Order. If a Police Constable had retired before the  Government Order came into force, obviously he cannot ask for the benefits under that Government Order. The Government Orders rather operates prospectively but it imposes/grants new results in respect of a past event. In other words, the Government Order operates forward but it looks backward and in that it attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the Government Order was issued. If the Government Orders are understood in this perspective, there is no need to get into the issue of “retrospective operation”.

  1. The Government Orders issued from G.O.Ms. No. 844, dated 3.6.1997 upto G.O.Ms. 15, dated 7.1.2010, brought about a time bound upgradation scheme to the rank of Head Constable and to the post of Special Sub- Inspector of Police respectively. For those Constables who are seeking for a  benefit under these G.Os, they are bound to satisfy the requirements stipulated under these G.Os. For this purpose, the amended Paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms. No 844, dated 3.6.1997 makes it very clear that only those Grade II men Police Constables who have completed 10 years of service will be promoted as Grade I Police Constables. Similarly, only those Grade I men Police Constables who have completed 5 years of service will be promoted as Head Constables. Since this process was undertaken in 4 phases stretching from 1997-98 upto 2000-2001, the manner in which the promotion to the post of Head Constable should be granted was provided in the said G.O. itself. The relevant tabular column has also been extracted supra.
  2. For the first time, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 937, dated 21.7.1998, the post of SSI of Police was created. There is no such post that is available under the Service Rules and it was done only to motivate/encourage Head Constables who have stagnated in that post for a considerable time as exams were not conducted for them for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector between 1985-1996 due to some administrative reasons. Hence, the focus under G.O.Ms.No. 937, dated 21.7.1998, was the stagnated Head Constables who were eligible for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector after writing the necessary examination. The G.O. made it very clear that for a person to claim for upgradation to the post of SSI of Police, 10 years of service as Head Constable was mandatory without any exception. The Head Constable who is upgraded to the post of SSI of Police will get the same pay and allowance as that of the Sub Inspector and duties will be specifically allotted to them as directed by the Director General of Police. The relevant G.Os. makes it very clear that the concerned constable should have put in 25 years of overall service out of which 10 years of service as Head Constable was made mandatory to become entitled for upgradation to the post of SSI of Police.
  3. The above position was properly appreciated by the earlier Division Bench in W.A. (MD) Nos. 361,364 and 367 of 2012. The effect of the GOs was applied to the petitioners therein and they were held not entitled to be promoted to the post of Head

Constables from an anterior date.  With due respects to the earlier

Division bench which passed the order in Review Application (MD) Nos 10 to 12 of 2013, the judgment of the Division bench in W.A.(MD) Nos 361,364 and 367 of 2012 ought not to have been reviewed on two counts and they are:

  1. By the time the Review Applications were taken up for hearing, the very same division bench had taken a contrary view in V.Samy case while passing an order on 17.6.2013 and by virtue of reviewing the order, a coequal bench has overruled the earlier order passed by the Division Bench and
  2. The review was allowed by relying upon the earlier orders passed in W.P.(MD) No 27036 of 2006 and W.A.(MD) No. 500 of 2008, which orders were not dealing with the scope of G.O.Ms.No. 844, dated 3.6.1997 and those orders were passed by relying upon

Rule 25 (b) of the Rules. This was made clear by the

earlier Division Bench while passing orders in W.A (MD).Nos. 361,364 and 367 of 2012 and inspite of the same, the very same order was used to review the earlier judgment of the Division Bench.

  1. A careful reading of the Government orders clearly brings out the fact that there is no scope for any deemed upgradation. The G.Os. makes it abundantly clear that the concerned Police Constable or Head Constable, as the case may be, should have held the relevant post for a fixed period of time in order to claim for upgradation. If the police personnel were aggrieved by such a stipulation, they ought to have challenged the Government Orders. No one has chosen to challenge the G.Os and an attempt is being made to twist the G.Os. to suit their requirement. This Court has to necessarily understand the G.Os. in the plain language used in those G.Os. and see if the concerned police personnel is satisfying the requirement. When a benefit is conferred, the requirements to get such a benefit must be satisfied.

There is no scope for a deemed satisfaction and what is expected is the actual satisfaction of the requirements. The concerned police personnel want these G.Os. to be implemented in such a way that upon completing a fixed period namely 25 years of overall service, they would get upgradation as Grade I Constable automatically and thereafter, as Head constables automatically and ultimately as SSI of Police also automatically. There is no indication in the G.Os for such automatic or deemed upgradation.

  1. The Division Bench in Samy case at paragraph 4 of the order has given a finding as if the actual service of 5 years (it should have been 10 years) as Head Constable is not required for upgradation as SSI of Police. This finding of the Division bench runs completely contrary to the mandatory requirement found in G.O.Ms No. 937, dated 21.7.1998. At paragraph 4 of the concerned G.O., completion of 10 years service as Head Constable is made mandatory, to be considered for upgradation to the post of SSI of Police. In view of the same, the finding given by the Division Bench in V.Samy case which formed the basis for granting the remedy, is not correct.
  2. The finding of the later Division Bench in

Ramachandran case to the effect that 10 years of qualifying service in the rank of Head Constable out of the total service of 25 years to be considered for the upgradation to the post of SSI of Police is the correct view.

  1. For the sake of clarity, we hold that the benefit of upgradation to the next level of promotion can be granted only by taking into account the completion of the qualifying service in each level of rank as prescribed in the above G.Os. There is no scope for any deemed upgradation or deemed promotion to the next level/ rank and such an interpretation of the G.Os will cause violence to the plain language that has been used in those G.Os. Every upgradation involves financial implications and the sanction is accorded by the Finance Department as per the terms of the G.O. by anticipating the exact increase in the expenditure by virtue of the upgradation/promotion. If such deemed upgradation or deemed promotion is read into the G.Os., it will not only go beyond the scope of G.Os., but also will end up in granting the benefit to those persons who are not covered under the Government order. The direct consequence will be that there will be a huge outflow of expenditure than what was expected through the beneficial scheme and it will put a lot of strain in the State’s exchequer.
  2. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to answer the second question that has been referred to this Full Bench hereunder:-

“We hold that the Division Bench in V.Samy case did not lay down the law correctly and we uphold the law laid down in V. Ramachandran case to the extent that there is no deemed upgradation or deemed promotion contemplated in the relevant Government orders and the benefit of upgradation/promotion to the next level can be granted/claimed only on

completion of the qualifying service in each level/rank as prescribed in the relevant Government Orders.   At the risk of repetition, insofar as understanding the expression “retrospective operation” is concerned, we

hold that The Government Orders operate

prospectively but it imposes/grants new results in respect of a past event. In other words, the Government Order operates forward but it looks backward and in that it attaches new consequences for the future to an event that took place before the

Government Order was issued. If the Government Orders are understood in this perspective, there is no need to get into the issue of “retrospective operation. Thus, we are of the view that the Division Bench  while rendering the judgment  in V.Ramachandran case  has dealt with the Government orders in its proper perspective and  the judgment  in V.Samy case is hereby overruled”.

  1. The answers given by us for both the questions referred to the Full Bench, shall form the basis for deciding these batch of

Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions. The Registry is directed to post the

Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals before the concerned portfolio Bench.

[P.U.J.,      N.A.V.J.,     K.R.J.]                  04.02.2022  

Rka

Internet: Yes

Index: yes

PARESH UPADHYAY.,J

 N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J

 

 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.,J rka

Common Order in

W.A.Nos.3748 of 2019, 1813, 1814,1815 of 2015, 1193 of 2016, 1246, 1247 of 2016, WA

No.103, 104,105, 106, 107, 108, 1530, 1741 of 2017,1938, 2158 of 2018, 1641, 3319, 3331,

4057 of 2019, 714, 715 of 2020, 511, 2873, 2881, 2882, 2883,2877, 2879,2880, 2874, 2875,2878, 2885, 2876, 2889 of 2021

WA(MD).Nos.840/2013,1286/2016,841/2013,704/2015,315/2016, 607,676,677,679,869,

1296 /2016, 816,820,946,971,989/2017, 137,445,446/2018, 854,855/2015, 453, 498, 512,

513, 515, 516, 517,518, 499,500,501,502,503,504,505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510,

511,514,587,588,590,591,592,593,594,595, 596,597,589,598/2018,

1256,1245,1386,1387,1422,1425,1431,1441,1442,1444,1446, 1447,1462,

1463,1554,1555,1556,1557,1558, 1559,1574,1575,1583,1584, 1585,1586/2019,2027,

2028,2029,2030,2031,2032,2033,2034,2035, 2036,2037,2038,2039,2040,2041,

2042,2043,2044,2045,2046,2047,    2048,2049,2050, 2051, 2053, 2052, 2054, 2055, 2056,

2057, 2058, 2059,2060,2061,2062,2063,2064,2065,2066, 2067, 2068, 2069, 2070,

2071,2073,2072,2074,2075,2076,2077,2078, 2080, 2079, 2083,

2081,2085,2082,2086,2084,2087,2088,2089,2090, 2091,2092,2093,2096, 2094, 2095,2097,2099, 2098/2021,

WP Nos.21467 of 2007,27749 of 2010, 21214, 23000, 26638, 26639, 26640, 30057 of 2011,

1840, 3937, 14771, 17768, 17769, 18205, 18229, 29040 of 2012, 8133, 22011, 33344 of 2013, 14580, 23434, 23435, 23436, 23437, 23438,30454,32639 of 2014

867,3472, 5607,5885,5886,5887,5888, 8396, 26594,29905 of 2015, 39259 of 2016,

17976,17977, 26615 of 2017, 2183,2184,14513, 20032/2018,  314, 322, 317, 324,328,330,333,5303,5310,23864/2019,

WP(MD).Nos.9704 to 9713 of 2014, 11126, 11167, 11168, 13311, 16224, 20903,21234/2014,

1109, 9863, 9864, 12333, 13295, 14250, 14251,14252,14253/2015, 677, 687, 742, 745, 746,

747, 750, 678, 679, 680,682,683,685,686,688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696,

697,698,699,700,743,744,748, 749, 684, 681, 1899, 1900,

1901,3509,4547,3690,3691,3692,3693,3694,3695,4990,5630,5631,

5632,5633,7681,7930,8114,8427,8599,17078,17079,17080,17081,18485,

18543,18762,18763/2016, 3261, 4238, 6681, 20349, 20404,

21296,21430,21435,21437,21998, 21999/2017, 2519, 2520, 2521, 9977,

15342,15360,15361,15362, 16892, 16893, 16894, 17089,

22467,23651,23741,23759,23766,23775,24691,24763/2018,1733,1771,

1772,1773,1774,2139,2870,10492, 10493, 10494, 10495, 10630, 13075,13114,13259,13297,13276,13298,13951,14569,15177,15430, 15910,16615/2019,

Revw(MD).Nos.99,100,101,102,103 of 2014 and   Rev.Appl.No.167 of 2021 and

CMP No.23767/2019, CMP Nos.15296, 16067, 16068, 16069/2016, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821,

1822, 1823,20177, 22220/2017, 15550, 16719/2018, 11161, 21317, 21384, 25431/2019,

9771,9776/2020, 2015, 19310, 19312, 19313, 19319, 19315, 19314, 19317, 19316, 19320,19326,19328,19334,19337,19308, 19363, 19309, 19311, 19424/2021

CMP(MD).Nos.8765,4144,4340,4381,4406,5196,8915,5669,/2016, 5678,6381,6557/2017, 704, 2662, 2663, 2673, 2972, 2974, 2976,

2978,2980,2982,2984,2986, 2988, 2990, 2992,2994, 2996, 2998,

3000,3002,3004,3006,3008,3010, 3011, 3012, 3007, 3009, 3001,2997,

2999,2993,2995,2989,2991,2985, 2987, 2981, 2983, 2977, 2979,

2979,2975,3003,3005,2973,3312,3313, 3314, 3315, 3316, 3317,3318, 3319, 3320,3321,3322,3324,3325,3326, 3327, 3328, 3329,

3330,3637,3323/2018,10688,10800,11505,11503, 11590,11609,11610, 11614, 11615,

11652,11655, 11656, 11666, 11667, 11669, 11670,11658, 11821, 11820, 11823, 12455,

12457, 12460,12463, 12465,12469, 12522, 12569, 12572, 12574, 12576,

12578,12577,12575, 12573, 12570, 12568,12521, 12458,12462, 12464,12468,12456/2019,

9453,2028, 9457,9459,9462, 9463,9464, 9465, 9468,9469,9470,9472, 9473,9476,9478,

9479,9494,9585, 9495, 9493, 9486,9489,9485,9488, 9491,9502,9507,9510, 9510,

9514, 9518,9522,9525,9527,9594,9497 , 9501,9503,9498, 9511, 9506,

9515,9524,9519,9516,9513,9505, 9508,9520,9517,9512,

9504,9526,9528,9530,9531,9532,9533,9534, 9535,9536, 9538,

9540,9542,9546,9547,9552,9553,9554,9555,9561, 9559, 9572,9574,

9565,9567,9539,9569,9566,9571,9576,9577,9545, 9544,9549,

9548,9556,9558,9550,9573,9551,9575,9560,9562,9581 9580,9564, 9563, 9578,

9579,9570,9568,9590,9591,9593,9584,9586,9589,9595,

9603,9602,9604,9587,9588,9607,9605,9611,9612/2021

WMP No.22868/2017, 38658/2016,6060,6027/2019

WMP(MD).Nos.5065,5066,5067,5068,6370,6630,5468,5467,5466,

5465,13428/2016,2599,16610/2017,2476,2477,19879,2700, 2701, 2702, 9122,13839,14917,15038/2018, 2167, 9777, 10455, 11022,12635,13248/2019

—

04.02.2022

..

You may also like...