Disposed¶40

The Principal Secretary to Government v. P. Balu

Madras HC22 Jul 2026WA(MD)/1017/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay revision / pay fixation; parity with similarly placed employees; G.O.(Ms) No.458 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 31.08.1998; Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN); Electrician / Electrician Trainee; Sivagangai; writ appeal disposed of as infructuous after supervening compliance; final orders dated 04.08.2025 in Proceedings No. 1676/IR1(HR.1)(4)/2023; compliance affidavit dated 11.08.2025 in Cont.P.(MD) No.1951 of 2025; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Letters Patent Clause 15 appeal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No fresh relief; the Writ Appeal was disposed of as nothing survived for adjudication, final orders revising the Writ Petitioner's pay having been passed on 04.08.2025 and monetary benefits being disbursed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶40

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs P. Balu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petitioner (P.Balu), an Electrician in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, was entitled to seek revision of pay in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998, on parity with similarly placed Electricians who had received the benefit of that Government Order.

¶35

Court's answer

It is an admitted fact that similarly placed Electricians in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited had been given the benefit of revision of pay in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998, and there is no reason why the Writ Petitioner alone should be excluded.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In view of the supervening compliance — final orders revising the Writ Petitioner's pay passed on 04.08.2025 and monetary benefits being disbursed — nothing survives for further adjudication; hence the Writ Appeal stands disposed of, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed, and there shall be no costs.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) by the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MME-1) Department, against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.17701 of 2021 (order dated 30.04.2024) directing passing of appropriate orders on refixation of pay of the first respondent (P.Balu), an Electrician in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998. The appellant had contended that the Government Order applied only to Electrician Grade-I in the Public Works Department and not to Electricians in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited. The Division Bench noted it was an admitted fact that similarly placed Electricians in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited had been given the benefit of the Government Order and there was no reason to exclude the Writ Petitioner alone. Since, during pendency, final orders revising the Writ Petitioner's pay were passed on 04.08.2025 in Proceedings No. 1676/IR1(HR.1)(4)/2023, a compliance affidavit was filed on 11.08.2025 in Cont.P.(MD) No.1951 of 2025, and monetary benefits were reported to be under disbursement, the Court held that nothing survived for adjudication, disposed of the Writ Appeal, closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P(MD) No.9146 of 2026), and made no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

W.A(MD) No.1017 of 2026 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD) No.9146 of 2026

¶8

The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MME-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

...... Appellant

Vs.

1.P.Balu

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 5.

¶13

3.The Factory Manager, TAMIN Graphites Plant, Jayanthi Udaiyanathapuram, Sakkanthi Post, Sivagangai District.

¶14

...... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to allow the above Writ Appeal and to set aside the order, dated 30.04.2024 made in W.P(MD) No.17701 of 2021 passed by this Court.

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Sentil Counsel for State of TN For R1 : Mr.G.Muthukkannan

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.]

¶22

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the first respondent in W.P.(MD) No.17701 of 2021, aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the said Writ Petition by order dated 30.04.2024.

¶23

The said Writ Petition had been filed by the first respondent herein in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking interference with the proceedings of the second respondent, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai, dated 02.03.2021 and seeking a direction to the first respondent, Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MME-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, to refix the scale of pay of the first respondent herein/Writ Petitioner as Rs.4000-100-6000 instead of Rs.3625-85-4900, notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and with

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶27

monetary benefits from 01.01.1998, in the light of G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998.

¶28

It had been contended by the first respondent herein in the Writ Petition that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that he was appointed in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Graphic Beneficiation Plant, Sivagangai, as an Electrician Trainee by an order of the second respondent dated 01.03.1994. On completing his probation period, his appointment was regularized by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.04.1995 and he was made permanent on 13.03.1997 and brought into regular service on the same date. It had been contended that the second respondent had revised the pay by order dated 02.03.2021, under which the pay of similarly placed Special Grade Electricians was also revised. The Writ Petitioner claimed parity.

¶29

It had been contended before the learned Single Judge that the second respondent had passed necessary orders revising the pay of the Writ Petitioner by order dated 03.04.2014 and thereafter, the entire records had been forwarded to the first respondent in the Writ Petition/appellant herein

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶33

for passing final orders on the request for pay fixation. The learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶34

The first respondent in the Writ Petition filed the present appeal contending that the Writ Petitioner was not entitled to seek revision of pay in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998. It was stated that the said Government Order had been issued revising the pay scale of Electrician Grade-I working in the Public Works Department and it could not be applied to Electricians working in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited. It was, therefore, contended that the claim of the petitioner could not be acceded to by the first respondent/appellant herein.

¶35

However, it is an admitted fact that similarly placed Electricians in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited had also been given the benefit of revision of pay in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.458, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 31.08.1998. There is no reason as to why the Writ Petitioner alone should be excluded. We are, however, informed that

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶39

subsequently the first respondent had also passed final orders with respect to the recommendation of the second respondent, revising the pay of the Writ Petitioner. This order was passed on 04.08.2025 in Proceedings No. 1676/IR1(HR.1)(4)/2023 of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai, who is the second respondent in the Writ Petition. It is further contended that the first respondent therein/appellant had filed a compliance affidavit on 11.08.2025 in Cont.P.(MD) No.1951 of 2025, stating that, consequent to the further directions, the second respondent had passed appropriate orders. It was also informed to us by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the monetary benefits are being disbursed to the Writ Petitioner/first respondent herein.

¶40

In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication. Hence, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶41

[C.V.K., J.] & [R.S.V., J.] 22.07.2026

¶42

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶43

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶46

Indu

¶47

¶48

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MME-1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶49

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 5.

¶50

3.The Factory Manager, TAMIN Graphites Plant, Jayanthi Udaiyanathapuram, Sakkanthi Post, Sivagangai District.

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.A.(MD).No.1017 of 2026

¶54

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶55

Indu

¶56

W.A(MD) No.1017 of 2026

¶57

22.07.2026

¶58

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Directions issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(MD) No.17701 of 2021 by order dated 30.04.2024, directing the first respondent (appellant herein) to pass appropriate orders on the pay-fixation request within twelve weeks.¶15
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (learned Single Judge) · 30.04.2024
Prior proceeding
First respondent (P.Balu) filed W.P.(MD) No.17701 of 2021 in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, dated 02.03.2021, and sought refixation of scale of pay at Rs.4000-100-6000 instead of Rs.3625-85-4900 notionally from 01.01.1996 with monetary benefits from 01.01.1998 in the light of G.O.(Ms) No.458.¶23
Prior proceeding
Writ Petitioner was appointed in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Graphic Beneficiation Plant, Sivagangai, as an Electrician Trainee by order of the second respondent dated 01.03.1994, his name having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.¶28
Prior proceeding
On completing probation, his appointment was regularized by proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.04.1995 and he was made permanent on 13.03.1997.¶28
Prior proceeding
The second respondent revised pay by order dated 02.03.2021, under which the pay of similarly placed Special Grade Electricians was also revised; the Writ Petitioner claimed parity.¶28
Prior proceeding
Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that the second respondent had passed necessary orders revising the pay of the Writ Petitioner by order dated 03.04.2014 and the entire records were forwarded to the first respondent for passing final orders on pay fixation.¶29
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.¶33
Prior proceeding
In the appeal, the appellant contended that the Writ Petitioner was not entitled to revision under G.O.(Ms) No.458, which had been issued revising the pay scale of Electrician Grade-I in the Public Works Department and could not be applied to Electricians in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited.¶35
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent passed final orders on the recommendation of the second respondent revising the pay of the Writ Petitioner, by order dated 04.08.2025 in Proceedings No. 1676/IR1(HR.1)(4)/2023 of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai.¶39
Prior proceeding
The appellant filed a compliance affidavit on 11.08.2025 in Cont.P.(MD) No.1951 of 2025 stating that, consequent to the further directions, the second respondent had passed appropriate orders.¶39
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner informed the Division Bench that the monetary benefits are being disbursed to the Writ Petitioner.¶39

The Principal Secretary to Government v. P. Balu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary to Government v. P. Balu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Jayakumar, Vs Ramakrishnan

Karthikeyan Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Palani Vs The District Collector

The Inspector General of Police Vs J.Ganesan, H.C.1717

The General Manager, Vs The Presiding Officer

Jeyarani Vs Malaiyappan