G.USHA vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
G.Usha
W/o.C.R.Chandra Raj,
Deputy Secretary to Government, Public Elections
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Secretary To Government
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl.)
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records of the respondents
in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in Lr.
No.1084/U.Spl./2013-1 dated 19.3.2013 and quash the same and further direct
the respondents to upgrade the pay of the petitioner as Joint Secretary to
Government and step up her pay at par with her junior M.Sampath who is
serving in the Finance Department with effect from 1.12.2010 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.P.Gowtham
Government Advocate
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by
the respondent in Lr.No.1084/U.Spl./2013-1 dated 19.3.2013 and further direct
the respondent to upgrade the pay of the petitioner as Joint Secretary to
Government and step up her pay at par with her junior M.Sampath who is
serving in the Finance Department with effect from 1.12.2010 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she participated in the selection
process for the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant through the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) in the year 1983 and was
subsequently appointed to service as Junior Assistant in the Public Department
of the Secretariat on 02.07.1984. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant
Section Officer in the year 1989 and thereafter, as a Section Officer in the year
2007. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Under Secretary
in June 2009 and further promoted as Deputy Secretary in August 2011 and the
petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2012.
3. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that at the time of her
appointment as Junior Assistant, there was no separate unit for Finance
Department. Subsequently, the departments were bifurcated. While the
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
petitioner continued in the secretariat service, certain other individuals were
allotted to the Finance Department and various other departments. The
petitioner, by relying on the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.126 P & AR (U
Spl) Department dated 29.05.1998, G.O.Ms.No.171 P&AR Dept. dated
28.09.2026 and G.O.Ms.No.154 P&AR Dept. dated 30.10.2009, claimed that
she was entitled to equal pay as that of her juniors who are working in the
Finance Department. The representation sent by the petitioner to the
Department was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.03.2013. Challenging
the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter inter-alia supporting the
impugned order.
5. The Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that
the impugned order was passed considering the relevant Government Orders
and service law and he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
DISCUSSION:
6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate for
the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. The scanned copy of the impugned orders is placed hereunder:
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
8. In the impugned order, the Department has made it clear that the pay
comparison by the writ petitioner with certain juniors is not legally sustainable
in view of the fact that they got promoted in another department namely, the
Finance Department and only due to that promotion, they are getting higher pay
of scale. Additionally, the petitioner has not reached the level which her juniors
have reached in the Finance Department. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that
she should be paid on par with her juniors is not legally sustainable.
9. The Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner relate only to the
increase in pay for individuals who were allotted to different departments
following the bifurcation. The increase in pay had already been carried out in
the present case and only subsequent to that, the concerned individuals are
getting their pay within their separate department. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot once again ask for equal pay citing the said Government Orders.
10. Therefore, there is nothing available for legal adjudication in the
present writ petition.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
03-11-2026
(2/2)
KSA-2
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
To
The Secretary To Government
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (U.Spl.)
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
KSA-2
WP NO. 10066 OF 2013
03-11-2026
(2/2)
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:21:14 pm )