Madras High Court
N.Manimozhi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.5784, 5780, 5782, 5786, 5788 & 5790 of 2016
N.Manimozhi
Tutor cum Warden
Government College Boys Hostel (BC)
Ramanathapuram
Ramanathapuram District-623 203 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.6671 of 2016
R.Ramamoorthy (Died)
Tutor Cum Warden,
Government Boys Hostel,
Neeravi,
Ramanathapuram District-623 203
1.R.Mahalakshmi,
W/o.R.Ramamoorthy (Late),
No.7/100, N.Veeppankulam,
Neeravikarisalkulam Village,
Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.R.R.Viswanathan,
S/o.R.Ramamoorthy (Late),
No.7/100, N.Veeppankulam,
Neeravikarisalkulam Village,
Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
3.R.R. Nirmal Ramasamy,
S/o.R.Ramamoorthy (Late),
No.7/100, N.Veeppankulam,
Neeravikarisalkulam Village,
Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District
4.R. Seethalakshmi,
S/o.R.Ramamoorthy (Late),
No.7/100, N.Veeppankulam,
Neeravikarisalkulam Village,
Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District
(P1 to P4 are substituted vide Court order
dated 31.07.2023 in WMP(MD)No.15376/2023
in WP(MD) No.6672/2016 by DEVJ) ...Petitioners in W.P.No.6672 of
2016
A. Steephen Francis
Tutor cum Warden
Government Boys Hostel (DNC)
Kamuthi
Ramanathapuram District - 623 707 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.6673 of 2016
V. Vijayalakshmi
Tutor cum Matron
Government Girls Hostel (BC)
Paramakudi
Ramanathapuram District - 623 707 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.6674 of 2016
S. Arunjselvi
Tutor cum Matron
Government Girls Hostel (MBC)
R. S. Mangalam
Ramanathapuram District - 623 525 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.6675 of 2016
S. Sabeetha Eswari
Tutor cum Matron
Government College Girls Hostel (BC)
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
Paramakudi
Ramanathapuram District - 623 707...Petitioner in W.P.No.6676 of 2016
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Finance
Fort St. George, Chennai - 09
2. The Principal Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Backward Classes
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare, Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
3. The Director
Department of Backward Classes,
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
4. The District Backward Classes
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare officer
Ramanathapuram
Ramnad District ...Respondents in all the petitions
PRAYER in all W.P.s:
To issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a
Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the the
impugned GO Ms No. 255 (Department of Finance Pay Cell) dated
22.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, quash the same, and further
direct the respondents to continue to pay the salary to the petitioner in the
scale of pay fixed as per GO. Ms.No. 23 (Department of Finance - Pay
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
Cell) dated 12.01.2011, and pass such further or other suitable Order /
Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case, and thus render Justice.
PRAYER in all W.M.P.s:
To grant an order of Ad-interim stay of the operation of the
impugned GO Ms No. 255 (Department of Finance - Pay Cell) dated
22.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and all proceedings in
furtherance thereof, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such
further or other suitable Order / Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ragatheesh Kumar for
Mr. T. Cibi Chakarabarthy.
For Respondents : Mr. J. Ashok, Additional Government
Pleader for R1 to R4.
COMMON JUDGMENT
In all the six writ petitions the petitioners are working as either
Tutor cum Warden or Tutor cum Matron in the district at
Ramanathapuram under the control of the 4th Respondent depending
upon the hostel in which they were posted. In these writ petitions, they
are seeking to quash the order of the 1 st Respondent government in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
G.O.(Ms) No. 255 (Department of Finance – Pay Cell) dated 22.07.2013
issued by the 1st Respondent quash the same and further direct the
respondents to continue to pay the salary to the petitioners in the scale of
pay fixed as per G.O.Ms.No. 23 (Department of Finance – Pay Cell)
dated 12.01.2011 and pass such further or other suitable Order / Orders
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
2.The 1st Respondent State government after getting proposal
from the pay grievance redressal cell formed by it to remove pay
anomalies issued the impugned G.O. in G.O.Ms. No. 255 Finance dt.
22.7.2013. By the said order, the pay in respect of wardens of BT Grade
and Secondary Grade were revised as follows:-
“The Pay Grievance Redressal Cell constituted in the
Government Order fourth read above to examine the
representations received from the Employees Associations /
Head of Departments / Individual employees including the
aggrieved petitioners in Writ Petitions relating to anomalies
in the revised pay structure of the respective posts has
recommended for revision of the scales of pay of certain
categories in Backward Class and Most Backward Classes
and Minorities Welfare Department. After careful
examination, the Government has decided to implement the
recommendations made by the Pay Grievance Redressal
Cell in respect of Backward Classes and Most Backward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
Classes and Minorities Welfare Department. Accordingly,
Government direct that the scales of pay of the following
posts shall be revised as shown below:-
SI.No. Name of the Post Existing Scale of Pay + Revised Scale of Pay
Grade Pay + Grade Pay
(Rs.) (Rs.)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 B.T. Warden 9300-34800+4400 9300-34800+4600
2 Secondary Grade 5200-20200 +2800+ 5200-20200 +2800+
Warden Special Allowance of Rs. Personal pay of Rs.
500/- 750/-
2) The revision of scale of pay ordered in para-1 above
shall take notional effect from 1-1-2006 for the purpose of
fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay with monetary
benefit from 1-4-2013. However, the Personal pay
sanctioned to the Secondary Grade Warden shall take
prospective effect from 1-4-2013.
3) This order shall also be applicable to the similar posts in
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department.”
3.The same petitioners have earlier filed a writ petition
anticipating a reduction of pay in W.P.No. 6665 to 6670 of 2016 with the
following prayer:-
“Writ Petitions are filed under 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to forbear from reducing the salary from the
present revised Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs.15600 -
39100 + GP5400 which they have been drawing with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
notional effect from 01.01.2006 and with monetary benefit
from 01.01.2011 up to this day.”
4.This court by a common order dated. 24.3.2021 disposed of all
the Writ petitions with the following direction:-
“Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and
the same, these writ petitions are taken up together and
disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the
respondents to forbear from reducing the petitioners- salary
from the present revised Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs.
15600 - 39100 + GP5400, which they have been drawing
with notional effect from 01.01.2006 and with monetary
benefits from 01.01.2011 up to this day.
3. The case of the petitioners is that initially the petitioners
joined as Tutor cum Warden in the Government College
Boys Hostel (BC), Ramanathapuram, on various dates and on
completion of 10 years, they were granted Selection Grade
Pay. Pursuant to the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report
and the subsequent decision of the Central Government, the
State Government adopted the same under G.O.(Ms).No.234
(Finance Pay Cell Department), dated 01.06.2009 and revised
the scales of pay of the State Government employees. As a
corollary, the petitioners- ordinary scale of pay was revised
and they were granted Selection Grade Pay Scale of Rs.
15600 -39100 + GP5400, vide order of the fourth respondent,
dated ....07.2011. While so, one R.Rajendran, who drew the
salary, like the petitioners, as per the revised scale of pay,
attained superannuation and retired from service on
31.12.2011. After few months, the fourth respondent has
issued an order dated ....03.2012, cancelling the earlier order
passed by the fourth respondent, dated ...07.2011, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
granting an opportunity to the petitioners. Challenging the
same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that this Court may issue a direction to the
respondents to pass orders, after hearing the petitioners.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents has no serious objection for such an order being
passed passed by this Court.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
scale of pay of the petitioners was revised, as per G.O.
(Ms).No.234 (Finance Pay Cell Department), dated
01.06.2009. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has passed an
order, dated ...03.2012, cancelling the earlier order, granting
revised scale of pay in favour of one R.Rajendran. However,
till date no order of recovery was passed, in view of the
interim order granted by this Court. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners in
these writ petitions. However, the respondents are directed to
pass orders, after following the principles of natural justice.
7. With the above direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.”
5.The Petitioners are once again before this court challenging the
revision of scale made pursuant to the grievance redressal cell
recommendations and removed the anomalies in the matter of pay
fixation. Explaining this revision, the 1st Respondent in their counter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
affidavit had stated as follows:-
“It is also pertinent to submit that since the B.T.Warden are
considered to be an equivalent post with B.T. Assistant and
granted the revised scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+G.P.Rs.
4600 on par with B.T. Assistants based on the
recommendations of the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell
notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 with monetary benefit
from 01.04.2013 their revised Selection Grade scale of pay
should also be regulated in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+
G.P. of Rs.4800 as was followed in the pre-revised scale of
pay and accordingly to re-fix the pay of the Selection Grade
B.T. Warden of Backward Class and Most Backward Classes
and Minorities Welfare Department in the appropriate revised
scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+G.P.4800. Therefore the
petitioners are not entitled for unintended higher scale of pay
notionally with effect from 01.01.2006 and with monetary
benefit from 01.01.2011. Hence, the impugned G.O. is legal
and not arbitrary.”
6.On a close reading of the pleadings and the earlier round of
litigation, it is evident that the petitioners now seek to quash G.O.(Ms.)
No. 255, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013 and to
continue receiving salary under the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 23, dated
12.01.2011. The essential grievance appears to be the downward revision
of their pay scale made pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay
Grievance Redressal Cell. It is not in dispute that the same petitioners
had earlier filed W.P. Nos. 6665 to 6670 of 2016 seeking a writ of
mandamus to restrain the Government from reducing their salary and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
protect their pay scale then in force. That writ petition was disposed of
by this Court on 24.03.2021 with a direction to the authorities to pass
orders after hearing the petitioners. Importantly, there is no averment or
material to show that any formal recovery order has since been passed.
The petitioners appear to have approached this Court once again, this
time to challenge the Government Order itself and to forestall any
adverse action that may arise as a consequence of its implementation.
7.During the course of arguments, it was suggested that even if
G.O. 255/2013 is implemented, the revised scale should take effect only
from 01.04.2013, as provided in the order itself, and that the petitioners
should not be subjected to recovery of amounts drawn prior to that date.
However, such a relief has obviously not been specifically pleaded in the
writ petition. It is also relevant to note that the pay scale enjoyed by the
petitioners was granted by earlier administrative orders, and the
impugned revision was a result of a rationalisation exercise adopted
across departments. The legality of such a revision cannot be questioned
merely on the ground of hardship. By challenging the impugned order,
the petitioners cannot avail unintended benefit of hike in their
salaries. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
As rightly contended by the Respondent, the Supreme Court vide its
decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand reported in
2012 (8) SCC 417 had observed as follows:-
“16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public
money which is often described as “tax payers money” which
belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-
payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the
concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such
situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has
been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly,
effecting excess payment of public money by Government
officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence,
carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in
such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee.
Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee
are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being
effected in many situations without any authority of law and
payments have been received by the recipients also without
any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without
authority of law can always be recovered barring few
exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in
such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to
repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust
enrichment.”
8.The principle laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (cited
supra) makes it clear that recovery of excess payment, even if made by
mistake and without fraud, may be legally permissible. In the present
case, as no recovery has yet been effected and no exceptional
circumstances have been shown and no case made out to entertain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
these writ petitions. Hence, W.P. Nos. 6671 to 6676 of 2016 will stand
dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, all
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.06.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
To
1.The Principal Secretary
Department of Finance
Fort St. George, Chennai - 09
2. The Principal Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Backward Classes
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare, Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
3. The Director
Department of Backward Classi,
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
4. The District Backward Classes
Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare officer
Ramanathapuram
Ramnad District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P. (MD) Nos.6671 to 6676 of 2016
and
W.M.P. (MD) Nos.5784, 5780, 5782,
5786, 5788 & 5790 of 2016
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 01:41:09 pm )
