Writ Court Cannot Extend Benefit Of Marriage Assistance Scheme Meant For Those Earning Minimum Wages Or Less To A Larger Class: Madras High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition challenging the decision of the Single Judge involving the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, “We are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge was not only beyond the scope of the writ petition but also amounts to substituting one executive policy for the other. In the absence of there being any law of the land that the benefit of marriage assistance shall be extended to those who are earning minimum wages or less, extension of that benefit to a larger class is only in the realm of the executive function and could not be ordered in exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Advocate General P.S.Raman represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

The Scheme was promulgated to benefit girls during their marriage, subject to the condition that the income of the applicant should not be more than Rs 6,000 per month, i.e. Rs 72,000 per year. The first respondent’s claim was rejected because, as per her income certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, her yearly income was Rs 1,08,000. The first respondent was held not entitled to the benefit of the scheme.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellants that, while examining the merits of the claim of the first respondent, the court exceeded the scope of the writ petition and went on to hold that the scheme ought to be extended to all those who were entitled to minimum wages. It was argued that the scheme promulgated by the State in exercise of its executive power could not be changed, varied or modified by a judicial order.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the scope of the writ petition was only whether the claim of the first respondent/ writ petitioner was rightly rejected or not. The first respondent did not make any prayer based on any ground that the sweep of the scheme was required to be extended to a larger class of persons earning income more than Rs 6,000. The Bench noticed that the income certificate of the first respondent, which was issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, recorded her income as Rs.1,08,00 per year, which meant that the average income was Rs 9,000/- per month.

The Single Judge held that the benefit of the scheme was required to be extended to a larger class of those who were earning income equivalent to or less than the then prevailing rates of minimum wages as per the notification issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. As per the Bench, the direction issued by the Single Judge was not only beyond the scope of the writ petition but also amounted to substituting one executive policy for the other.

Reaffirming that there is a limited scope of judicial review in the matter of challenge to any executive policy, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Judge.

Noting that the scheme had been discontinued, the Bench held that even though the scheme may have discontinued, if the first respondent would get the income certificate modified under a fresh inquiry by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to prove that during the relevant period when the scheme was in force, her income was less than Rs.6,000, she would be entitled to the benefit of the policy. “The direction is confined only to the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner and shall not be treated as a general direction”, it concluded.

Cause Title: The Principal Secretary to Government v. S.Chitra (Case No.: WA No.3866 of 2025)

Appearance

Appellants: Advocate General P.S.Raman, Additional Government Pleader S.John J.Raja Singh

Click here to read/download Order