Madras High Court
K.Kayalvizhi vs The Registrar General on 25 October, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR,
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024 and
WMP Nos.33646, 33647, 33673, 33677, 33718, 33719,
33720 and 33721 of 2024
K.Kayalvizhi ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.31031 of 2024
E.Sivagamasundari ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.31053 of 2024
S.Packirisamy ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.31070 of 2024
K.Govindaraj ... Petitioner in
W.P.No.31074 of 2024
Vs.
1. The Registrar General,
High Court, Chennai-104.
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam District 611 001. ... Respondents in
all the writ petitions
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
PRAYER in all the writ petitions: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records in Circular dated 13.09.2021 issued by
the Registrar General on the file of the first respondent and quash the same
and further forbearing the respondents from revising the pay of the
petitioner, reducing and recovering on the basis of unlawful audit objection.
In all the writ petitions
For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Lenin Balu
For the Respondents : Ms.P.Selvi, Standing counsel
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. )
All the writ petitions have been filed to quash the Circular dated
13.09.2021 issued by the Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai
and further forbearing the respondents from revising the pay of the
petitioner, reducing and recovering on the basis of unlawful audit objection.
2. Since the prayer sought for in all the writ petitions are one and the
same, this court passes the common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
3. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is follows:
The petitioner in W.P.No.31031 of 2024 is working as Central Nazir
in District Court, Nagapattinam; the petitioner in W.P.No.31053 of 2024 is
working as Sheristadar in Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam; the
petitioner in W.P.No.31070 of 2024 is working as Record Keeper in District
Court, Nagapattinam; and the petitioner in W.P.No.31074 of 2024 is
working as Sheristadar in District Court, Nagapattinam.
3.1. The petitioners had received information that their pay revision
and payment of arrears in the cadre of Head Clerk was not correct and hence
it was decided to re-revise the pay drawn and also to initiate recovery of the
excess amount paid. The petitioners learned that in the impugned circular
dated 13.09.2021, the first respondent earlier recommended that only the
post of Head Clerk of Chief Judicial Magistrate to be upgraded from the
scale of pay 1400-2600 to 1600-2660 and not the other Head Clerks in
Judicial Magistrate Court and hence audit objection was made.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
3.2. According to the petitioners, the upgradation of certain posts was
made and recommended by the High Court as early as in the year 1992 from
the scale of pay of Rs.1400-1600 / Grade Pay 4200 to 4800 in the Pay Band-
II, i.e. present level 12 to 18 and following the same, the Government has
also issued orders upgrading the posts. Further, this upgradation was not
implemented across the State, and it was selectively implemented. As such,
writ petition Nos.13459 to 13461 of 2011 were filed and as per the order
dated 12.04.2017, the petitioners pay was upgraded retrospectively and
consequently, their pay was revised and arrears were also received by them.
Now, on the basis of the the audit objection, action has been taken to
recover the amount. It is contended by the petitioners that they are nearing
the age of superannuation and if the recovery proceedings are initiated
against them, they will not permit to retire, unless they paid the recovery
amount. Hence the writ petitions have been filed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, on
instructions from the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam submitted that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
the post of Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court and also the Head Clerk,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam were sanctioned in the (pre-
revised) scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 subsequently revised as PB2 9300-
34800 + 4200 GP, as per G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Department, dated
01.06.200. However, mistakenly, the writ petitioners and some of the staff
members in the court of Nagapattinam District were fixing/re-fixing their
scale of pay in the post of Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court in PB2
Rs.9300-34800+GP 4800 Level 18 (Superintendent level), instead of PB2
Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 Level 11. It is also submitted that the scale of
pay of the promotive post of Bench Clerk Grade-II is in PB2 Rs.9300-34800
+ GP 4300) Level 12 and hence, it is impermissible to fix the pay of the
petitioners in the post of Head Clerk Judicial Magistrate Court on par with
the Superintendent i.e. PB2 Rs.9300-34800+GP 4800) Level 18, which is
the feeder post of Bench Clerk Grade II.
5. We have gone through the impugned circular dated 13.09.2024
issued by the Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai, in which, it is
held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
2. In the said Government order (G.O.Ms.No.416, dated
11.03.1993), though the Government among other posts have upgraded
the post of Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court instead of
Head Clerk in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, the High Court,
in its proeedings dated 20.07.1993 in the reference 2nd cited, among
other posts, has upgraded only the posts of Head Clerk in Sub Courts,
District Munsif Courts (including DM-cum-JM Court) and Chief
Judicial Magistrate Courts and not the post of Head Clerk of Judicial
Magistrate Courts, as proposed by the High Court under reference
first cited.
3. However, taking advantage of the mistake crept-in in
G.O(Ms) No.416, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 11.03.1993, the
pay scale as that of the Superintendent level was sought for by the Head
Clerks in the Judicial Magistrate Courts by filing writ petitions, which
were accordingly ordered. Placing reliance on the same, similarly
situated persons (both in service and retired) are requesting to refix
their pay as per the aforesaid Government Order.
4. Therefore, the High Court, in the letter under reference 4th
cited, has addressed the Government to issue necessary amendment
to G.O.Ms.No.416, Home (Cts.V) Department, dated 11.03.1993, to
replace the words " Judicial Magistrate Court" by the words " Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court" and orders in this regard are awaited.
5. Inview of the above, the Principal Judge/Principal District
Judges/ District Judges/District Judge -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate
in the State of Tamil Nadu are hereby directed that no claim made by
any of the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Courts seeking pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
revision on par with that of Superintendents in Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service shall be entertained based on the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.P.(MD) No.13459 to 13461 of 2011 dated
12.04.2017.
From the above circular, it is made clear that the High Court has sent a letter
to the Government seeking necessary amendment in G.O.Ms.No.416, dated
11.03.1993 and the orders in this regard are awaited.
6. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that, so far, no recovery proceedings have been
initiated as against the petitioners.
7. Considering the fact that the impugned Circular was issued only
by giving such instructions to the concerned courts in the Tamil Nadu State;
and also seeking amendment to the G.O.Ms.No.416, dated 11.03.1993 as
stated supra; and also taking into account the fact that so far, no recovery
order has been issued against the petitioners, we are of the view that the writ
petitions cannot be entertained at this premature stage. In such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
circumstances, it is for the Government to take appropriate decision and
issue necessary amendment to the said G.O. and communicate the same the
Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai-104 at an earliest.
8. With the above observations, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.B.B.J.)
25.10.2024
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Registrar General,
High Court, Chennai-104.
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam District 611 001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
W.P.Nos.31031, 31053, 31070 and 31074 of 2024
25.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
