Madras High Court
WP/9284/2016 of R.Kumarasamy Vs The Principal Secretary to on 16 September 2026
W.P.No.9284 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.09.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.9284 of 2016
and WMP.No.8249 of 2016
1.R.Kumarasamy
2.K.Kumar
3.R.Thamaraiselvi
4.R.Adalarasu
5.G.Kumar
6.P.Vennila
7.R.Thirukumaran
8.S.Prem Krishnan
9.K.Devasena
10.T.Anuradha
11.G.Pandi
12.M.Kannan
13.C.R.Moorthi
14.M.Karthikeyan
15.R.Gangadharan
16.L.Stephen Kennedy
17.D.Muthukumar
18.P.Rajasekaran
19.A.Saravanakumar
20.C.Anandavalli
21.V.R.Ravikumar
22.V.Suresh Kumar
23.R.Sivakumar
24.E.Sathiyabama
25.N.Suriya
... Petitioners
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016
vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Finance (Pay Cell) Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary
Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
(R2 Suo moto impleaded vide Order dated 09.09.2026)
… Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the Government Order issued in GO.Ms.No.241 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 22.07.2013 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to sanction higher start of pay to the petitioners i.e, for the post of Village Administrative Officer from 01.04.2013.
For Petitioners
: Mr.S.Mathivanan
For Respondents
: M/s.C.N.G.Niraimathi
Spl. Counsel for R1.
Mr.C.P.Goutham for R2
Government Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent and perused the records.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016
2. In short the grievance of the petitioners is in relation to non grant of higher start of pay in the post of Village Assistant Officer (VAO) for possessing degree qualification and to quash the GO.Ms.No.241 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 22.07.2013 passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher start of pay has been rejected by the respondents.
3. On 09.09.2016, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Counsel and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had informed this Court that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the 1st respondent had addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent dated 04.04.2017 informing the concerned authorities that the present writ petitioners are entitled to be sanctioned for higher start of pay for possessing degree qualifications which was not granted to them due to administrative reasons, though they had obtained higher qualification after joining in the service.
4. On the aforesaid submission being made before this Court by the
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016 learned Special Counsel, this Court had suo-motu impleaded the Principal Secretary, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -5 as second respondent in the present writ petition and directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions as to whether the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, pursuant to the letter of the first respondent dated 04.04.2017.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent on instructions submitted that the 2nd respondent acting on the communication of the first respondent dated 04.04.2017 had granted the benefit of higher start of pay to the petitioners for acquiring higher educational qualification (i.e.,) degree after joining in service.
6. As the second respondent by providing instructions to the learned Government Advocate representing the said respondent had confirmed that the petitioners having been granted higher start of pay for possessing degree qualification after joining in the post of VAO, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition has been redressed and no
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016 further no orders are necessary.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that despite his best efforts to contact the petitioners to get confirmation to the above effect, he is not been able to do so.
8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid submissions made by the leaned counsel for the petitioners, since, the learned Government Advocate on instructions having informed this Court of the petitioners being granted higher start of pay, this Court is of the view the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.
9. Placing on record the statement made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent as noted above, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.09.2026 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016 Finance (Pay Cell) Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )
W.P.No.9284 of 2016 T. VINOD KUMAR
, J.
tsh W.P.No.9284 of 2016 16.09.2026.
( Uploaded on: 24/09/2026 11:53:04 am )