- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Review Application No. 42/2008, M.P. No. 1/08 dated 18th March, 2008 and M.P. No. 2/08 in review application No. 42/08. Accordingly, the respondent's review application was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court as the same relief which was turned down by this Court has been sought for in the review application. It is the case of the appellants that the High Court has passed the interim order of status quo which would entitle the respondent to enjoy the benefits of conditional promotion as well as benefit of three years of extra service to which he was not entitled to.
(3.) It is pointed out that the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the appellants granting liberty to proceed with departmental inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent filed SLP(C) 4552-4553/2008 specifically praying to restrain the department from reverting the respondent from the post of DIG to the post of Additional DIG and consequently to the post of Commandant. The aforesaid SLPs were mentioned on 21-2-2008 and it was directed that the matter shall be listed on 3rd March, 2008 and reversion, if any, was stayed till then. The matter was listed and after hearing the parties this Court dismissed the SLPs. Soon after dismissal of the SLPs on the merit, the respondent again filed revision for review of the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.1074 and 1075 of 2004 dated 4-1-2008. The plea essentially was to get his two promotions regularized which otherwise had been accepted by the respondent for many years to be conditional. It is pointed out that when the departmental proceedings were initiated during 2000 against the respondent he was serving in the rank of Commandant and was not entitled to any promotion during the pendency of the departmental inquiry against him and the age of superannuation in the rank of Commandant is 57 years. Therefore, he was required to superannuate during September 2008. He was promoted conditionally to the rank of Addl. DIG and DIG respectively by virtue of interim orders of the High Court dated 29-3-2004 and 6-7-2007 during the pendency of the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants. It was clearly mentioned by the High Court that such promotions were subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal Nos. 1074 and 1075 of 2004. It is pointed out that even without deciding on the question of maintainability of the review application, the interim orders were passed virtually allowing the review application.;