WP/21199/2022 of M.Amudha Vs The Government of Tamilnadu on 1 October 2026

ORDER

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to take appropriate action to revise the petitioner's pay scale and refix the petitioner's salary as per G.O.(Ms.)No.77, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.02.2021, on par with the petitioner's batch mates, on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 07.02.2022 and 27.04.2022, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears from 01.07.2011 till date, towards arrears of salary and allowance, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, within a stipulated time frame fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she was appointed as Community Organiser at Thiruverkadu Municipality, Thiruvallur District, during 2005 vide appointment letter dated 05.12.2005. At the time of appointment, she was provided with a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- and initially, her appointment was on contract basis under the Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana Scheme (SJSRY).

3. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on 30.10.2006, after her regularisation, her pay was fixed vide order of the Thiruverkadu Municipality dated 07.05.2007 at Rs.3,200-85-4,900/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to various Municipal Corporations of respondents 3 to 7 respectively at different points of time.

4. The learned counsel would submit that, on 26.02.2021, the Government, after accepting the One Man Commission's report, passed a Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.77, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated

20.02.2021, whereby her pay as Community Organiser was revised. In respect of pay arrears, the 4th respondent has also passed an order on 03.12.2021.

5. Though the petitioner is eligible to have a pay revision, namely, initially the time scale of pay with increment and subsequently, as per the One Man Commission's report, the respondents, though on record, have calculated the pay revision, whereas the monetary benefits have not been settled since 2011 onwards. In this regard, there were various representations. In spite of this fact, no action was taken by the respondents.

6. The learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the 4th respondent's letter dated 17.06.2022 addressed to the petitioner, stating that her claim could not be settled on account of the loss of certain records in the MTC-70 Register. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, since there were certain lapses on the part of the administration, the petitioner's monetary benefits cannot be denied endlessly. Hence, he prays to issue a mandamus.

7. There is no serious dispute with regard to the factual aspect about the appointment of the petitioner in the time scale of pay and her entitlement for increment and also her revision of pay in accordance with the One Man Commission's report.

8. As per the counter statement of the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that, from 01.07.2010 to 01.07.2012, all the increments and the subsistence allowances were already sanctioned to the petitioner and the same is pending settlement in this Corporation. However, he wants to verify the present position. Even the 4th respondent would submit that they have already refixed the pay of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate would submit that whatever amount is eligible to the petitioner would be settled within a reasonable time.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

10. While looking into the factual position, there is no serious dispute in respect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, they would only contend that, though they sanctioned the amount, the amount is yet to be settled. As per the letter of the 4th respondent, they have also found it difficult on account of the loss of certain records. It is relevant to mention that, even for argument's sake, if any record is misplaced so as to confirm the quantum of pay, it would not be so difficult for the authorities concerned to fix the pay of the concerned employee and her pay can also be fixed on par with her immediate junior. But in this case, such circumstance has not been made by the concerned authorities.

11. From the narration of the submissions and also the perusal of the records, since 2011, the petitioner has been forced to run from pillar to post to get her statutory entitlement. This Court would like to mention that, since because the concerned officials are vested with all protection, they cannot ignore their subordinates by stating some lame excuses. When the authorities are receiving their entitlement, it is their bounden duty to settle the dues which are payable to their subordinates.

12. In this case, according to the submissions and the manner in which the petitioner's pay has been pending since 2022, this Court finds an absolute lackness on the part of the authorities concerned. Therefore, this Court finds all justification to issue a mandamus to the respondents. The respondents are directed to settle the monetary dues of the petitioner as per the revision of pay already sanctioned to the petitioner at various points of time and also in furtherance of the One Man Commission's Government Order in G.O.

(Ms.)No.77, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 20.02.2021, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition. If any amount has already been sanctioned, the same may be deducted.

13. With the above discussion and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

To

1. The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its principal chief secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water supply department Secretariat Fort St. Goerge chennai 09

2. The director directorate of municipal administration No. 75 Urban Administrative building Santhome High Road MRC Ngar Raja Annamalaipuram chenani 28

3. The commissioner Vellore city Municipal corporation Infantry Road vellore 632 001

4. The commissioner Kancheepuram city municipal corporation Annai Indira gandhi Road Kancheepuram 631

5. The commissioner Tambaram City Municipal Corporation No. 28, Muthuranga Mudali Street Tambaram West, Chenani 600 045

6. The project Director Tamilnadu State Urban Livelihoods Mission Mahalir Thittm istrict Mission Management Unit Collectrate Buildings, Kancheepuram District

7. The Project Director Tamil Nadu state Urban livelihoods Mission Mahalir Thittam Dstrict Mission Management unit Thirutheri Sathyanagar S.P. Koil Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu 603 204

8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS WP No. 21199 of 2022 and WMP.No. 20193 of 2022 01-10-2026