WP/8190/2010 of KARUNAKARAN Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 27 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings issued by the second respondent in CPO.No.458/2010 and C.No.N2/47798/2008 dated 09.03.2010.

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that they joined service as Police Constable Grade-II on 25.10.1981 after completing their S.S.L.C. They were subsequently promoted to the rank of LNK via proceedings in CPO.1456/86, and thereafter as Grade-II NK vide Do.1421/81-C.No.A2/10776/89. Following further regular advancements, they were promoted to the post of Head

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

Constable through proceedings in No.1522/89 dated 01.11.1989. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the seniority list of Head Constables prepared by the official respondents, the petitioners’ position are as follows:

S.Karunakaran

1871 P.Muthukumar

1638 Rajan

Udhayakumar

K.Velukutty

3. The petitioners further pleaded that the respondents 3 to 8 approached this Court by way of W.P.No.3666 of 2009 and obtained an order dated 25.06.2009. On the basis of the said order, the official respondents revised the seniority list. To the shock and surprise of the petitioners, their claims were overlooked, and respondents 3 to 8 secured promotions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 09.03.2010.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

5. At the outset, the learned Government Advocate raised a technical objection, submitting that two separate proceedings were issued on 09.03.2010, namely CPO.No.458/2010 and CPO.No.459/2010. It is contended that the petitioners ought to have challenged both orders, and having failed to challenge CPO.No.459/2010, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court is not inclined to entertain such a technical objection at this point of time. Both CPO.No.458/2010 and CPO.No.459/2010 were issued on the exact same date and are already annexed to the typed set of papers. The petitioners have raised valid grounds with respect to both proceedings, and merely because one order was not explicitly included in the formal challenge, it will not disentitle the petitioners from obtaining a favourable order from this Court.

7. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners have already superannuated from service, and as such, nothing survives for consideration before this Court.

8. On the other hand, the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

is very clear in paragraph 16, which reads as under:

16) With regard to the averments made in grounds under para- (a) to (h), it is submitted that it is true that as per the orders of the High Court and Government, the petitioners seniority as Head Constables will be overlooked and the juniors will overtake the seniority of the petitioners. Though the grievance of the petitioners are true, it is submitted that only on the directions of the High Court orders, the seniority has been revised.

9. From the counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the grievance of the petitioners is genuine. It was only because of the Court orders that respondents 3 to 8 received the benefits of promotion and the re-fixation of seniority.

10. In paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents relied upon the Court proceedings in W.P. No.3666 of 2009. Even if the order in W.P.No.3666 of 2009 was simply implemented by the respondents, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to ensure that other eligible employees are also taken along with the persons who are to receive benefits by way of a Court order. The respondents ought not to have denied the said benefits to the

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

petitioners merely because they did not approach the Court earlier.

11. This Court is of the view that after superannuation, the petitioners are not entitled to any retrospective monetary benefits on par with respondents 3 to

8. Furthermore, the writ petitioners’ claim regarding primary benefits on par with respondents 3 to 8 will be notionally re-fixed, and the same shall be taken into consideration exclusively for the purpose of the re-fixation of pensionary benefits.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Pol-V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Coimbatore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )

WP.No.8190 of 2010

KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. Sni WP.No.8190 of 2010 27-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:14:32 pm )