BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date : 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.P(MD) No.7494 of 2021

&

M.P.(MD)Nos.5672 & 5674 of 2021

P.Navamani ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Mahila Court,

Srivilliputhur,

Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 03.09.2020 and the consequent order in Order No.1, dated 23.09.2020 and quash the same and direct the respondent to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner's salary from September

2020 onwards.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.V.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a court staff. She challenges the impugned order passed by the respondent refixing her pay and directing recovery.

3.The writ petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service as Senior Bailiff on 31.05.1993. She was appointed as reader on 01.01.1997. She was then posted as Junior Assistant on 30.06.1998. The petitioner was then promoted as Sub-Court Sheristadar on 29.05.2017. On 09.04.2018, she became Grade I Bench Clerk. While so, the audit wing of the High Court raised an objection that since the post of senior bailiff, reader and junior assistant were in the same scale of pay, posting the writ petitioner as reader and then as Junior Assistant should not have been construed as promotion and therefore, increment should not have been awarded. It was in that view of the matter, re-fixation and recovery was ordered. On the same lines, the audit wing took the view that posting the writ petitioner as Sheristadar and then as Grade I Bench Clerk should also not have been treated as promotion.

4.The only question that calls for consideration is whether the appointment of the petitioner from the post of Senior Bailiff to the post of Reader and her appointment as Junior Assistant from the post of Reader can be called as promotion.

5.It is not in dispute that the post of Senior Bailiff, Reader and Junior Assistant were and are in the same scale of pay and therefore, the stand of the employer is that posting the petitioner as Reader and then as Junior Assistant should not have been treated as acts of promotion. We have to see whether this stand of the employer is sustainable.

6. Our attention is drawn to Rule 2(12) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules which defines promotion. It reads as follows:-

“Promotion:-

Promotion means the appointment of a member of any class, category or grade of the service to a higher class, category or grade of the service.”

7. Rule 5 states that the Service shall consist of five Classes and categories of officers. Class IV & V which deals with the Constitution of ministerial Courts reads as follows:- CLASS-IV (MOFUSSIL COURTS) 1. Sarishtadars of District Courts and Chief Judicial Magistrate's Courts.

2. Sarishtadars of Subordinate Judge's Courts.

Head Clerks of the District Courts, Central Nazirs.

3. Head Clerks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Courts Head Clerks of the Subordinate Judge's Courts Superintendents of Labour Courts, Madurai and Coimbatore (inserted SROB 81/98)

Heard Clerks of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrates Courts Head Clerks of the District Munsif Courts Record Keepers of the District Courts Senior Superintendent of Copyists Deputy Nazirs Translators.

4. Record Keeper, Subordinate Judge's Court.

Ootacamund First Clerk, District Court, Coimbatore One Bench Clerk in each of the District Courts and Subordinate Judge's Courts Assistants

5. Junior Assistants Assistant Nazirs Junior Superintendent of Copyists Typists and Steno-Typists

6.Assistant Superintendent of Copyists Examiners Readers Class -V (Mofussil Courts)

Senior Bailiff Copyists

8.The petitioner was posted as rea