Retired Constables Overtaken By Juniors Get Seniority Refixation For Pension, Not Back Pay: Madras HC

The petitioners, Police Constables who were subsequently promoted as Head Constables, challenged proceedings dated 9 March 2010 revising seniority and granting promotional benefits to respondents 3–8 following an order in W.P. No. 3666 of 2009.

The petitioners alleged that their seniority and claims to promotion had been overlooked

The State objected that the petitioners had not separately challenged a second proceeding issued on the same date, and also submitted that they had since superannuated.

In its counter-affidavit, the State accepted that the petitioners’ seniority had been overlooked and that juniors had overtaken them.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against unlawful administrative action.

The Court applied the principle that employees who are eligible and similarly affected should not be denied consequential consideration merely because they did not previously approach the Court, even where the immediate benefits arose from implementing a court order in another employee’s case

The Court held that, following superannuation, the petitioners were not entitled to retrospective monetary benefits, but their claims could be notionally re-fixed for the purpose of recalculating pensionary benefits

The Court declined to uphold the State’s technical objection because both proceedings were before it and the petitioners had raised grounds concerning them.

It also considered the State’s admission that the petitioners’ seniority had been overlooked.

Although the revision had been made in implementing the order in W.P. No. 3666 of 2009, the authorities remained responsible for ensuring that other eligible employees were not denied corresponding consideration merely because they had not brought earlier proceedings.

However, because the petitioners had superannuated, the Court limited relief to notional re-fixation for pension purposes and excluded retrospective monetary benefits.

It denied retrospective monetary benefits, made no order as to costs, and closed any connected miscellaneous petitions.