@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, challenging an order of the second Respondent dated
21.08.2008 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to grant one time accelerated promotion and other
benefits to the Petitioner as granted to other contemporary Special Task Force personnels in G.O. Ms. No. 1346 Home (Pol.V) Department
dated 06.12.2004 and G.O. Ms. No. 468 Home (Pol.2) Department dated 19.3.1996 and to pass appropriate orders.
2. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 28.08.2009. Subsequently, the matter was admitted on 12.03.2010. On notice from this
Court, the first Respondent Government has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.03.2010.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. M. Ravichandran, counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
4(1). The case of the Petitioner was that he was an Head Constable serving in ''Q'' Branch, CID Police at Thanjavur Unit. He joined as Police
Constable in the year 1994 and he has worked for more than 16 years. While he was serving in the 3rd and 4th Respondents'' office, he was
engaged in a Team headed by one Deputy Superintendent of Police by name S. Rajendran to combat the extremist groups which was functioning
under the name and style of ""Tamilar Meetchi Padai"" (Tamil Retrieval Force). That group had links with the forest brigand and sandal wood
smuggler Veerappan, thereby caused endanger to the security of the State of Tamil Nadu and sovereignty of India. The Petitioner''s team headed
by the then Inspector of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police Rajendran consisted of two Sub Inspectors, three Head Constables including the
Petitioner and one Police Constable. They captured the extremists on 18.11.1999 and arrested one Muthukumar, the leader of Tamil Nadu
Retrieval Group (TNRT) and his associates Sathyamoorthy, Manikandan and one Muruganandam who belonged to ''Tamilar Pasarai''. They also
recovered revolver, pistols and bullets, which was looted by them along with sandal wood smuggler Veerappan on 20.12.1998 at Vellithiruppur
Police Station. At the time of their operation, the accused fired at the Petitioner''s team and to the great risk of their personal life, they were able to
arrest them. A case was registered against them in Thanjavur ''Q'' Branch CID Department in Crime No. 2 of 1999 for offences under the Arms
Act. The accused were remanded to custody and thereafter, the files were transferred to the District Crime Branch, Erode at the instance of the
second Respondent Director General of Police.
4(2). In continuation of the above operation, their Team had also arrested one Muruganandam, the leader of Terrorist Group by name ''Tamilar
Pasarai'' and seized explosive substances from him. Another case was registered in Crime No. 3 of 1999 for offences under the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908. Subsequent to the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in S.C. No. 101 of 2000 and the Sessions Court at Thanjavur
convicted the accused.
4(3). Their team also engaged in the capture of an accused one Selvam @ Raju on 07.02.2001 and on his confession they rushed to Banglow
Pudur Jungle where large amount of fire arms were seized and a case was also registered.
4(4). The very same team also dealt with the investigation of the abduction of Kannada Actor Dr. Rajkumar in Crime No. 90 of 2000 on the file of
the Thalavadi Police Station. They had also dealt with the case of attack of Kullanchavadi Police Station in Cuddalore District and Andimadam
Police Station in Perambalur District. They had arrested Ravi @ Vazhuthalampattu Ravi, Alappakkam Murugesan, Nallarasu, Peter, Radio
Venkatesan and other extremists in Tamil Nadu.
5. It was submitted that Thanjavur ''Q'' Branch CID Team Personnel''s were granted meritorious service entry and money rewards by the third
Respondent Inspector General of Police, Intelligence. They were also granted meritorious service entry and money rewards for their excellent
works done. They served in the jungle area to nab the forest brigand Veerappan. The team leader S. Rajendran, then Inspector of Police was
awarded with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister''s Medal in the year 1988 and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister''s Police Medal on the eve of Independence
Day 2002.
6. It was stated that the first Respondent State Government passed an order in G.O.(Ms) No. 1252 dated 29.10.2004 granting accelerated
promotion to the Special Task Force (STF) which was responsible for encounter and killing of notorious Forest Brigand Veerappan. In the
Government order dated 29.10.2004, it was stated as follows:
In a daring and intrepid operation, the Special Task Force headed by Thiru K. Vijay Kumar, I.P.S., Additional Director General of Police, has
shot dead the Forest Brigand, Bandit, murderer and dacoit Veerappan along with his three gang members on 18.10.2004. This sterling
achievement is the result of sustained efforts of Special Task Force Officers and men who have indeed sacrificed their safety and the comfort of
their home, spending years away from their families and leading dangerous life in the thick forest, braving hardship, sickness and threat to their
precious lives.
2. In recognition of their courage and heroic achievement, the Hon''ble Chief Minister in the Press Meet held on 19.10.2004 has announced among
others that ""one stage accelerated promotion"" will be given to all the 752 Special Task Force, Personnel involved in the operation.
Apart from specifying the total number of persons as 752, classification of the rank of various Police Force was also given in Paragraph 5.
7. Subsequently, G.O. Ms. No. 1346 Home (Police VIII) Department, dated 06.12.2004 was issued in respect of another group of 163 persons
who had earlier served in the Special Task Force and made outstanding performance. In paragraph 3 of the Government Order, it was stated as
follows:
3. The Government have now reviewed the above issue further and decided to recognize the service of those police personnel who displayed
exemplary courage risking their life against the Forest Brigand Veerappan and his gang. In pursuance of the above, the Director General of Police
has proposed for granting of one stage accelerated promotion to another batch of 163 (one hundred and sixty three only) police personnel who
had earlier served in the Special Task Force and performed outstandingly in manor operations and encounters during the period 1993-94 and the
police personnel who were members of the Jungle Patrol Party (Precursor to the Special Task Force) who had participated in major operations
and encounters cases from the year 1990-93 which ultimately ended in the killing of Veerappan and his gang.
The number of persons and their rank were also set out in paragraph 5.
8. It was claimed by the Petitioner that the Government has constituted a Board and has prescribed guidelines for grant of accelerated promotion
to Police Persons vide G.O. Ms. No. 468 dated 19.03.1996. Under the said guidelines, the Board will comprise of Secretaries to the Government
for the Departments of Home, Public, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police
as its Members. A Deputy Secretary or Joint Secretary or Special Secretary to the Government for Home Department will act as the Secretary of
the Board. They will examine the matters for awarding accelerated promotion to the Police persons on the basis of the Performance of High Order
and Exceptional Personal ability in achieving operational success at great risk to personal life and Professional competency of a very high order in
detecting sensational murder, dacoity, robbery and other such cases having ramification in other parts of the country and its successful prosecution.
9. It is the case of the Petitioner that the 4th Respondent sent a representation dated 22.04.2008 recommending the case of S. Rajendran, Dy.
Supdt. of Police to consider him for the grant of promotion on par with the STF staff who were awarded Medal, Cash reward promotion and
house site. By an order dated 21.08.2008, the second Respondent rejected the said request. However, subsequently, S. Rajendran, Dy. Supdt. of
Police once again made a request to the 4th Respondent to grant the entire team including the Petitioner for the accelerated promotion as
announced to the STF. The fourth Respondent forwarded the said letter to the second Respondent. Thereafter, they also sent further
representation to the second Respondent. Since there was no reply, they have come forward to challenge the communication sent by the second
Respondent dated 21.08.2008. By the said order, the second Respondent informed that S. Rajendran, who was heading the team including the
Petitioner was not directly involved in the operation to capture Veerappan and therefore, they were not eligible for the same relief.
10. The contention raised by the Petitioner was that even persons who were not directly involved were granted incentives in terms of G.O. Ms.
No. 1346 dated 06.12.2004 and that the question whether such a relief can be given for outstanding performance can be decided only by the
Committee headed by the Home Secretary and comprising of other Secretaries to Government and the Board which is authorised to perform the
said duty. The second Respondent is only a member and therefore, he cannot forestall their claim being considered by the said Committee.
11. on notice, the first Respondent State filed a counter. It was stated that the Petitioner was given cash awards for the work done by him. The
arrest of Selvam was only in the discharge of his official duty and he did not play any direct role in the arrest of Veerappan or in the release of the
abducted cine actor Rajkumar. With reference to the attack on the Kullanchavadi Police Station, he had only assisted the Investigating Police
Officer and it was part and parcel of his official duty. Suitable Cash awards were given for the work done by the Petitioner and their claim was
rejected through the orders of the second Respondent.
12. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 7 and 8 it was averred as follows:
7. It is submitted that the Government issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No. 1252, dated 29.10.2004 and G.O.(Ms) No. 1346, dated 06.12.2004, in
which, instructions were issued, regarding the selection of police 11 personnel for the award and other benefits to be granted related to the
elimination of Veerappan. Based on that guidelines and as per the available records, the representation of the Petitioner was considered and found
that the role played by the team led by Thiru S. Rajendran, then Inspector of Police, ''Q'' Branch C.I.D, Thanjavur Unit was not directly involved
in the elimination of Veerappan. Hence the representation of the Petitioner was rejected and the Petitioner was also informed through the Director
General of Police vide his C.O. Memo Rc. No. 231678/GB II(1)/07 dated 21.08.08 communicated in C. No. A1/Q/9329/08 dated 31.10.08.
8. It is submitted that the ''Q'' Branch C.I.D was established to watch and collect intelligence and to take appropriate follow up action against the
individuals/Members of Tamil Chauvinists, L.T.T.E, Srilankan Tamils and left wing organisations, who indulged in activities which are likely to
affect the general Law and Order situation of the state and affect the relationship with the neighbouring states and countries. The Petitioner is also
one of the member of the ''Q'' Branch C.I.D and he assisted his superior that is Thiru S. Rajendran, then Inspector of Police, ''Q'' Branch C.I.D,
Thanjavur Unit. Moreover he is bound to do such kind of legal duties as instructed by his superiors.
13. Though Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel contended that even the counter affidavit will not satisfy his client since the matter was
never placed before the Board. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. What is sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction
to the State to exercise its discretion to grant relief to the Petitioner. Both the Government Orders referred to by the Petitioner are relating to
specific incidents in which the number of persons to receive accelerated promotions were specifically identified and the order restricted relief only
to them. The Petitioner on his own cannot canvass for a reward for his service in the absence of any legal or enforceable right on his part. Though a
Government Order was referred to by him i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 468 dated 19.03.1996, the said GO is of a general nature and not relating to any
particular event. But in respect of events for which Petitioner claims accelerated promotion namely elimination of Sandal Wood Smuggler
Veerappan, the Government had exercised its discretion under the said Government Order and had issued G.O. Ms. No. 1346 dated 06.12.2004
and G.O. Ms. No. 468 Home (Police) Department, dated 19.03.1996. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek to enlarge the scope of the said
Government Orders and ask for further relief.
14. The contention raised by the Petitioner is self-serving and not based upon any standard adopted by the State Government. Further the
Petitioner''s promotion had to be based upon relevant Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Any executive order of the State
Government cannot supplant those Rules. As to whether those two Government Orders issued by the State Government over which the Petitioner
claims parity is legally valid or not is not an issue which has to be decided in this writ petition. It is suffice to state the Petitioner cannot improve
upon the two orders and then claim parity in the absence of any legal right on his favour. As correctly stated in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner
had only discharged his official duties and it cannot be said that he had achieved extraordinary task which had to be rewarded by way of an
accelerated promotion. As stated by the Respondents, the Petitioner was given necessary cash rewards and he cannot by invoking the jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 seeks for a direction to grant further discretionary relief from the State Government. Such a prayer cannot be
countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
