J.Kirubanathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER In the Government Order first read above, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board was directed to recruit 1000 Sub-Inspectors of Police through direct recruitment. Subsequently in the Government order second read above order were issued to recruit the above said Sub-Inspectors of Police on range wise selection basis. In the Government order third read above, orders were issued to train the selected candidates in two batches. Accordingly, the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the yer 1997-98 was made range/Zone wise. However two separate seniority lists were prepared based on the date of appointment. Against the above fixation, many second batch candidates who scored higher marks in the Police training college than the first batch candidates filed Writ Petitions. On examination of the request, orders were issued revised the seniority of 96 persons vide government orders vide fifth to ninth read above.

¶2In view of the repeated representations and court orders, the Director General of Police/Head of Police Force, Chennai in his letter 10th read above, among others, has proposed to revise the seniority of the Sub-Inspector is of Police directly recruited in the year 1997-98, but whose seniority in Two different compartments as they were sent for training in two different batches on

16.04.1999 and 22.05.2000 the Director General of Police has stated the 50 percent of Top most rank holders in each Zone were sent for Training in the First Batch on 16.04.1999 and the remaining 50 percent were sent for training in Second batch on

22.05.2000 for want of accommodation in the Police Training College and two seniority list were drawn based on the date of appointments.

¶3The Director General of Police/Head of Police Force, Chennai, has, therefore requested to issue necessary orders to prepare a fresh seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police directly recruited in the year of 1997-98 in a combined manner clubbing the candidates sent for training in different batches as One batch except for the candidates for whom any specific direction regarding fixation of seniority as already been given (i.e.,) for the candidates appointed as fresh entrants during the year 2015 and 2018 as per the directions of High Court of Madras and its Madurai Bench.

¶4In the Meantime the High Court of Madras, in a similar case, in the orders Thirteenth read above, in W.P.No.21698/2018, ordered as follows:

(i) In respect of the same recruitment/selection, all the selected candidates, who were appointed to the post of Sub-Inspectors are to be treated as one Unit for the purpose of fixation of seniority. The delay caused, if any, on administrative reasons and for providing training would not affect the prospects of the candidates, who were selected in the same selection.

(ii) The selection list already maintained by the Department with reference to the same selection is to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving the seniority of respective persons, who were appointed pursuant to that selection.

(iii) In this regard, the authorities competent must ensure that the merit list/ranking list as well as the order of appointments are to be considered for the purpose of fixation of seniority of the respective candidates, taking note of the fact that such persons are appointed from the same selection.

(iv) In this regard, if any discrepancies are found in the impugned seniority list now under challenge in the present writ petition, the respondents are bound to review the decisions in order to correct the errors, if any, occurred.

(v) The writ petitioner is at liberty to submit her revised objections/explanations, if any, with reference to the fixation of her seniority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of receiving any such objections/explanations, with reference to her respective

seniority,

such applications/objections/explanations are directed to be considered by the authority and appropriate decision is to be taken by strictly following the rule of seniority as stated above, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of her objections/explanations.

(vi) The official respondents must ensure that the rule regarding the seniority is strictly followed without any deviation or ambiguity. In the event of any doubt, suitable clarifications are also to be obtained from the Government and accordingly, implement the Rule of seniority in order to avoid all such further litigations in this regard.

¶5The Government have carefully examined the proposal of Director General of Police/Head of Police Force Tenth read above, taking into account the above directions of High Court of Madras and the opinion of learned Advocate General of Tamil nadu and have decided to accept it. As per the provision to rule 25(a) of the Special rules for the Tamil nadu Police Sub ordinate services, the seniority of the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police (category-2 of Class – I) shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the final examination in Police Training College. Accordingly, the Director General lof Police/Head of Police force is directed to revise the seniority of the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors of Police during the year 1997-98 as per the marks obtained by them in Police Training College and to prepare a fresh seniority list in a combined manner by clubbing the candidates sent for training in two different batches as one batch assigning the revised seniority numbers except for the candidates for whom any specific directions have been given regarding fixation of seniority as per the directions of the Courts and as per the rules in force, subject to the outcome of the pending litigations before the courts in this regard, after inviting objections from all the candidates recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police during 1997-98. A Compliance report along with the revised seniority list may be sent to government. By Order of the Governor S.K.Prabakar (Additional Chief Secretary to Government) To,

1.The Director General of Police/Head of Police force, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-04.

2.The Director General of Police/Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai-08. Copy to: The Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chennai-09. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-09. The Law Department, Chennai-09. Stock file/spare Copy. /Forwarded/By Order/ Sd/ SECTION OFFICER"

¶7It is relevant to recapitulate the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court made in K.K.Senthilkumar's case, supra, in the matter of seniority: "During the course of hearing, a serious issue arose as to whether the above-mentioned 11 persons, should be granted seniority with effect from the same date persons originally selected against the posts of Sub-Inspector (through the selection process for the years 1997-98) were appointed. Learned counsel for the above-mentioned 11 appellants very fairly state, that they would have no objection if the appointment of these 11 appellants, were ordered to be made with immediate effect, in that, they would be extended the benefit of seniority at the bottom of the regularly appointed Sub-Inspectors as of today. Ordered accordingly."

¶8Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.12966 of 2021 submitted that the terms of the rules cannot be modified on an agreement between individuals. So the willingness of the appellants involved in K.K.Senthilkumar's case, supra, by expressing no objection cannot change the rules of seniority and, hence, the petitioners are entitled to be placed only along with their batch mates of the year 1997-1998.

¶9The aforesaid argument is adopted by Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18057 of 2021, who also added that the rule cannot be diluted by giving waiver to some set of people. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the service jurisprudence would only mandate to treat the similarly placed persons equally and the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the following cases:

(i) K.C. Sharma and others v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721.

(ii)State of Karnataka and others v. C.Lalitha,

(2006) 2 SCC 747.

(iii)State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347

¶10Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.10747 of 2021 and petitioners 2 to 24 in W.P.No.12783 of 2021 also advanced his arguments in similar lines in which the other learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12966 and 18057 of 2021 have argued. Mr.P. Wilson further submitted that in W.A.No.1350 of 2017 and batch, it has been observed that the seniority list has to be prepared on the basis of the date of reporting and not below the Sub-Inspectors of Police who have been directly recruited in the year 2015. It is further submitted that when a thing is ordered to be done, it should be done in a manner known to law or it should not be done. To fortify the said submission, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Vergese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others,

(1993) 3 SCC 422. He further submitted that the judgment should not be read as a statute, but it must be construed as if it had been rendered inter se parties and in accordance with law. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in C.Lalitha, supra.

¶11Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first petitioner in W.P.No.12783 of 2017 reiterated the aforesaid submissions made by the other learned Senior Counsels. W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021:

¶12The sum and substance of the claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that when rules of seniority prescribe that the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained in the final examination of the police training and when the candidates selected in one recruitment should be treated as one unit for the purpose of seniority, the seniority of the petitioners has to be re-fixed, except for the candidates for whom any specific directions have been given for fixation of seniority.

¶13The petitioners and others could not be appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police in view of the range-wise selection method adopted by the TNUSRB has ended in fiasco. Since some of the candidates have filed litigations from time to time before the Tribunal and later writ petitions and then appeal before the Apex Court, the petitioners also got their chance of appointment. Though a blunder has been committed by the TNUSRB, the petitioners have joined the service after several years. Even though the petitioners have conveniently claimed that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, their appointment orders have been issued only based upon the orders passed by the Court in the earlier litigations and not otherwise.

¶14Though it is the argument of the petitioners that rules cannot be waived by some set of people expressing their willingness for the same, they could seek a favourable order from the Court only because they have given a go-by to the claim for seniority in respect of the year 1997-1998 and conceded to have them placed below the Sub-Inspectors of Police who were selected as on the date of the order. Obviously, at the time when the order has been passed in W.A.No.1350 of 2017 etc. batch on 23.04.2018, the Court could not have looked into the decision of the Apex Court made in K.K.Senthilkumar case, supra, on the aspect of seniority. The order dated 23.04.2018 in respect of regularisation has not dealt the complex issues involved in the seniority and a concrete finding as to how the seniority has to be fixed is not arrived at. It is a generous observation made in terms of and in view of the Government Orders already issued for accommodating 77 persons who satisfied the minimum cut-off marks. Having found that the writ appeals became infructuous in view of the above order of appointment, the writ appeals have been disposed of. Even in that order, it has been clearly observed that "the selectees will get their benefit only from the date on which they are given appointment order and they cannot get any benefit retrospectively".

¶15For the sake of convenience, the concluding paragraph of the judgment dated 23.04.2018 in W.A.No.1350 of 2017 etc. batch is extracted hereunder: "7. Since out of 88, pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Government has accommodated 77 persons, who satisfied the minimum cut off marks in the District wise selection, we are of the considered view that the above writ appeals filed by the Government as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge has become infructuous and hence, the above Writ Appeals are disposed of. However, so far as those persons who are selected, the benefit of their selection would be only from the date of the issuance of appointment order prospectively. Since it is found that the Government has considered selection of 77 persons and their appointment orders would come into effect from the date of reporting for duty, seniority list has to be prepared on the basis of date of reporting and they are not entitled for any other service benefits over others who were already selected. All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

¶16One thing which has to be noticed is that while issuing the Government Order for accommodating 77 persons in the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police, there was no vacancy pertaining to the recruitment year 1997-1998 and an adjustment has been made from and out of the vacancies of the year 2015-2017. Even though the petitioners have undergone the selection process for the year 1997-1998, what was offered to them was the post pertaining to the year of 2015-2017. The petitioners knew pretty well about the impact of the seniority at the time when they had chosen to accept the appointment order. All candidates appointed pursuant to the orders of the court availed the benefit accrued from the orders of the Court. Though some of the candidates were not parties to proceedings, they were aware of the loss of years of service and the resultant seniority. Even though rules cannot be diluted by way of agreement to waive, the fact remains that vacancies offered to the petitioners as per their appointment orders are only from and out of the years 2015-2017.

¶17Had the petitioners sought a clarification about the general words employed in the judgment in W.A.No.1350 of 2017 in respect of their seniority, the intention of the Court would have been made clear. In the order dated 23.04.2018 in W.A.No.1350 of 2017, it has been clearly stated that persons newly appointed are not entitled to any other service benefits over the others who have been already selected. That means all those who have been appointed by virtue of the impugned appointment order could not get any benefit, including the seniority over and above all persons already selected.

¶18Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondent State has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20599 of 2019 [M.Sundarapandian v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Home (Police V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9], wherein the same issue was raised and it was negatived by an order dated

06.07.2021. Paragraphs (13) and (14) of the said order would be relevant and the same are quoted hereunder: "13.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now submitted that the said consent was given without the knowledge of the petitioner. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that some of the candidates filed Review Petition (C) Nos.2872 to 2876 of 2014, to review the order fixing the seniority at the bottom of the Sub-Inspector of Police as on that date. The said review petition was dismissed on 06.05.2015, confirming the order, dated 07.08.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014, placing the petitioner and others at the bottom of the seniority list of regularly selected Sub-Inspector of Police as on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

14.In view of this fact, it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that consent was given before the Hon'ble Apex Court without his knowledge and therefore, the same is not binding on him. The petitioner, in fact, is seeking to set aside the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court for fixing his seniority. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on all the High Courts and Subordinate Courts. This Court has no power or competent to overrule the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner on par with his batch mates. It is pertinent to note that one V.Jeyabalan, similarly placed like the petitioner, gave a representation dated 25.04.2016 and the said representation was rejected by the respondents on the same day, when the petitioner's representation was also rejected on 31.08.2016. This Court, by an order, dated 03.01.2017, referring to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7668 to 7672 of 2014, dated 07.08.2014, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the said V.Jeyabalan. The petitioner also field W.P(MD) No.19544 of 2016, challenging the order, dated

31.08.2016 and also filed a review petition before the second respondent to review the order of rejection, dated 31.08.2016. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted the claim of the petitioner to dispose of the review petition in the said Writ Petition and by an order, dated 05.10.2018, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the review petition within a period of two months."

¶19It is made crystal clear in the aforesaid observation that the petitioner therein cannot contend that consent was given without his knowledge and, hence, the judgment of the Apex Court placing the similarly situated other petitioners at the bottom of the seniority list of regularly selected Sub-Inspector of Police will not bind him.

¶20Learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners submit that the Courts should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. But, here is a case where the petitioners are given appointment as against the vacancies of the year 2015 even though the selection process is of the year 1997-1998. In all probabilities, possibilities and factual circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim over and above those who have already been selected at the relevant point of their appointment.

¶21The appointment of the petitioners cannot be equated with the other appointments. The petitioners could get into the department after waiting for several years and after facing several turn of events - either by being or not being parties to the proceedings before the Courts. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of seniority in respect of the year 1997-1998 as though they are unaware of the tumult and turbulence connecting to their appointment.

¶22In the extraordinary circumstances in which the petitioners have been given with the appointment by bending the rules to the effect of deducting certain posts of future vacancies, the rules with regard to seniority should also be relatively interpreted and the petitioners cannot claim ignorance or lack of consent on their part to be placed below the Sub-Inspectors of Police who were already in service as on the date of their appointment. Thus, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021 are not entitled to the relief claimed by them. W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021:

¶23Insofar as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 are concerned, they did not wait for any miracle to happen despite their good efforts to get appointed in the recruitment year 1997-1998 got failed. They themselves conveniently have participated in the subsequent selection to the post of Constables and have entered the service as Constables. After they reached the position of Head Constables, they have been given the benefit of orders pertaining to the other petitioners in respect of these appointments. Unfortunately, for these petitioners, the regular promotion would have given more benefit than the benefit got through the direct recruitment, pursuant to the orders of the Court. The past services of these petitioners cannot be denied or go unrecognized and their continuous service has to be taken into consideration by the respondents. When these petitioners stand on a different footing, the same yardstick ought not to have been adopted against them to their disadvantage. In fact these are the persons who did not wait to blame the blunders of the recruitment. Instead they had chosen to take the quick and practical route to stick in the department, when the next recruitment for police constable was taken effect.

¶24The impugned order issued by the first respondent State, vide G.O.(Ms) No.249, Home Police-III Department, dated 06.07.2020, is primarily based on Clause (6) of the Rulings under Explanation 4 to FR 22-B of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules. FR 22-B will ensure fixation of initial pay in the promotional cadre of person who is getting equal pay in the lower post itself by one increment at the stage at which the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the pay in his lower post. FR 22-B reads thus: "22-B. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a Government servant holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity, is promoted or appointed a substantive or officiating capacity, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment, at the stage at which such pay has accrued. If the monetary benefit after such fixation falls short of five per cent of the pay drawn in the lower post, his pay in higher post shall be so fixed, allowing a minimum increase of five per cent of the pay drawn in the lower post. Where the pay drawn in the lower post on the date of promotion or appointment plus five per cent of the pay drawn in the lower post is a stage in the time-scale of pay of the higher post, the pay shall be fixed at such stage in the time-scale of pay of the higher post. Where the pay drawn in the lower post on the date of promotion or appointment plus five per cent of the pay drawn in the lower post exceeds the amount arrived at for fixation of pay in the higher post under this rule but where there is no corresponding stage in the time-scale of pay of the higher post, the pay shall be fixed at the next higher stage in the time-scale of pay of the higher post. Provided that ....... Explanation 1. ...... Explanation 2. ...... Explanation 3. ...... Explanation 4. ...... Rulings (1) to (5) .....

(6) In the case of a Government servant already in service in a post is appointed to another post through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by direct recruitment, or when the mode of his appointment to the new post is by direct recruitment, the Government servant concerned should be allowed to draw the minimum of the time scale of pay or as provided in the service rules relating to such appointments and fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22 or 22-B is not admissible."

¶25However, Clause (6) of the Rulings under Explanation 4 to FR 22-B of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules would speak about the appointment to another post of a person already in service through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by direct recruitment. In such case, the Government servant concerned would be allowed to draw the minimum time-scale of pay as provided in the service rules relating to such appointments and fixation of pay under FR 22 or FR 22-B is not admissible.

¶26By considering the petitioners who are already in service as fresh recruits to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police, in pursuant to the orders of this Court in respect of other persons who have participated in the recruitment of the year 1997-1998, the pay for these petitioners have been fixed not under FR 22-B. While fixing the pay without giving the benefit of FR 22-B, the respondent State omitted to take into consideration of the fact that many persons of these petitioner's constable batch, would have the benefit of FR 22-B on their promotion to the post of sub-inspector.

¶27This is a classic example of how a long legal battle had affected even those persons who had not depended on the outcome of the litigation but proceeded to fit in the next available opportunity. At the time when the litigation to the recruitment for the year 1997-1998 got disposed and the benefit of those orders was extended to these petitioners, they have been serving as senior head constables. And they have been getting the pay equivalent to the starting pay of the sub-inspector. Even without the aid of the orders of the court, the next level promotion for these persons is sub-inspector of police only. As they had entered into service by undergoing proper selection process and in accordance with Rules, the benefit of FR 22-B should have been given to them.

¶28Even by considering the petitioner's case as an extra-ordinary one, a special order could have been issued for entitling the petitioner to get the benefit of FR 22-B for these petitioners.

¶29Clause (6) of the Rulings under Explanation 4 to FR 22-B of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules forbids the grant of benefits of FR 22 or FR 22-B to a new entrant through the direct recruitment by TNPSC. But it does not contemplate a situation that had arisen in this case.

¶30In normal course, if persons already in the department participate in any subsequent direct recruitment and get appointed, no doubt, Clause (6) of the Rulings under Explanation 4 to FR 22-B of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules will apply. But these petitioners, had already participated in the selection process even before their recruitment as Constables and hence this situation can not be treated as an in service direct recruitment. In view of the peculiar situation that had arisen in this case, the benefit of 22-B should be granted to them.

¶31It is difficult to imagine persons already in service are robbed off the benefits normally enjoyable by them, in view of the lapses on the part of someone else or the institution. If the outcome of a judicial order confers any better benefit than what is being already enjoyed it is acceptable. If, it strips away the benefits already enjoyed and puts the receiver at a disadvantage, the interest of justice cannot be served.

¶32In the instant case, the petitioners have lost the benefit under FR 22-B which was normally available to them. In fact, these petitioners did not wait for the aid of the court's order to design their future. They had risen up to the occasion and got themselves employed at least in the next recruitment for Constables by burying their original dreams and aspirations. Instead of appreciating their efforts and putting them at a better position, they have been treated on par with those persons who stood either as fence-sitters or completely dependent on the verdict of the Court, to draw the lines for their future.

¶33The rules are framed just to ensure equality and not to cause anomaly or disorder. In the instant case, by withholding away the benefits of FR 22-B to the petitioner, an anomalous situation has been caused and the same has to be rectified. It is needless to say that in the earlier occasion also such kind of anomalies have been resolved by passing appropriate orders by the State. Hence the State shall not find any difficulty to appreciate the anomalous situation and pass positive orders in favour of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 for refixing their pay by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.

¶34For the foregoing reasons,

(i) W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 are allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to pass orders and re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B and in the light of the observations made herein above.

(ii)The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii)W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021 are dismissed.

(iv)There shall be no order as to costs.

(v)Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.13768, 13769, 13770, 13771, 11380, 11382 11383, 11386, 13580 to 13582, 13584, 19738, 11379 and 19740 of 2021; 16148, 16150, 16152, 16154, 22235, 22236, 22239 of 2020; 6288, 6290, 6291 and 6294 of 2021; 9759 and 9760 of 2022 are closed.

14.03.2024 Index : Speaking order/ Non Speaking Order : bbr To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home (Police III) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Office of DGP, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 009. W.P.No.13033gofg2020getc.gbatch

R.N.MANJULA, J. bbr g W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 & W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.13768, 13769, 13770, 13771, 11380, 11382 11383, 11386, 13580 to 13582, 13584, 19738, 11379 and 19740 of 2021; 16148, 16150, 16152, 16154, 22235, 22236, 22239 of 2020; 6288, 6290, 6291 and 6294 of 2021; 9759 and 9760 of 2022 ggggg

14.03.2024 Pageg56gofg56

2024:MHC:1292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 15.12.2023 DELIVERED ON : 14.03.2024 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 & W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.13768, 13769, 13770, 13771, 11380, 11382 11383, 11386, 13580 to 13582, 13584, 19738, 11379 and 19740 of 2021; 16148, 16150, 16152, 16154, 22235, 22236, 22239 of 2020; 6288, 6290, 6291 and 6294 of 2021; 9759 and 9760 of 2022 W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677/2021: 1.J.Kirubanathan 2.P.Perumal 3.G.Rajendran 4.R.Pandiyan 5.S.Ashok Kumar 6.N.Rajkumaran 7.R.Velumurugan 8.R.Shankar 9.A.Sivkaumar 10.M.Selvaraju 11.R.Senthilkumar 12.S.Ramesh 13.C.Vinojayakumar 14.K.Karunakaran 15.N.Sriraman 16.J.Vijay Muthukumar 17.V.Baskaran 18.K.Sethu 19.U.U.Senthilmathan 20.Balasubramanian 21.G.Venkaetesan 22.K.Sugumaran 23.K.Tirunavukarasu 24.E.Swaminathan 25.N.Senthilkumar .. Petitioners in W.P.No.13033 of 2020 1.N.K.Arunmugam 2.R.Gunaseelan 3.S.Raja 4.P.Jeyakumar 5.G.Rajeshkannan 6.S.Ramachandran 7.M.Kavurajan 8.S.Latha Kumari 9.P.Sivakumar 10.D.Thangavel .. Petitioners in W.P.No.17937 of 2020 1.M.Divakar 2.S. Selvam 3.P.Balakumarasamy 4.S.Latha 5.K.Prabhakaran 6.R. Anandan 7.P. Mageswaran 8.S. Ramachandran .. Petitioners in W.P.No.5677 of 2021 Vs. 1.The State of TamilNadu Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Police III) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 09. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of DGP, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. .. Respondents in W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021 Prayer in W.P.Nos.13033, 17937 of 2020 and 5677 of 2021: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to order of the 1st Respondent in G.O (Ms) No.249 Home Police-III department dated 6.7.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to fix the scale of pay of petitioners as per FR 22-B by fixing initial pay in the time scale int he post of Sub Inspector at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing their pay in respect of last drawn salary in the post Head constable by one increment at the stage at which such pay had accrued and grant all the arrears and other benefits including counting of the past service for the purpose of pension gratuity and all other attendant benefits from the date of appointment as Sub Inspector. W.P.Nos.10747, 12783, 12966 and 18507 of 2021: 1.R.Pandiyan 2.N.Rajkumaran 3.K.Sugumaran 4.P.Balakumaraswamy 5.Kavrajan .. Petitioners in WP.No.10747 of 2021 1.S.Ramachandran 2.K.Magesh Kumar 3.S.Suresh 4.S.Ashok Kumar 5.N.K.Arumugam 6.C.Vino Jeyakumar 7.R.Gunaseelan 8.G.Venkatesan 9.R.Velmurugan 10.S.Kumar 11.S.Raja 12.M.Selvaraju 13.S.Selvam 14.G.Rajendran 15.J.Kirubananthan 16.P.Sivakumar 17.G.Janarthanan 18.P.Perumal 19.K.Prabhakaran 20.M.Divakar 21.R.Anandan 22.P.Mageswaran 23.S.Ramachandran 24.P.Jeyakumar .. Petitioners in WP.No.12783 of 2021 1.USenthilnathan 2.V.Baskaran 3.M.G.Raja Robert 4.R.Sankar 5.S.Sivaraja 6.K.Janakan 7.K.Thirunavukrasu 8.S.Ramesh 9.S.Balasubramaniam 10.R.Senthilkumar 11.N.Senthil Kumar 12.G.Rajesh Kannan 13.D.Thangavel 14.N.Sriraman .. Petitioners in WP.No.12966 of 2021 1.S.Ponraja 2.G.Soorian 3.P.Murugan .. Petitioners in WP.No.18507 of 2021 Vs. The State of TamilNadu Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Police III) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. The Director General of Police, Office of DGP, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all four WPs C.Sumathi M.R.Rajesh T.Kirubanithi R.Subbian G.Saiganesh .. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 in W.P.No.10747 of 2021 [R3 to R7 impleaded vide order dt.29.09.2022 made in WMP.No.18440/2021] B.Arul Murugan, Inspector of Police (Special Branch), Office of Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District. P.Arul Jothi, Inspector of Police, V