WA/786/2025 of The Chairman cum Managing Director Vs S. DORAISAMY on 22 September 2026

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Kanyakumari – 629 003. … Appellants -vs- D.Justus Sundar Singh

CNR:{HCMA011650872024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Kanyakumari – 629 003.

-vs- M.Manikandan

CNR:{HCMA011663142024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

3. The Superintending Engineer Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd, Kanyakumari – 629 003.

-vs- P.Chandran

CNR:{HCMA011663332024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

3. The Superintending Engineer Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli - 627 007.

-vs-

P.Subbiah

CNR:{HCMA011665762024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

3. The Superintending Engineer Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli - 627 007.

-vs- M.Iyyappan … Respondent(s) W.A.No.789 of 2025 CNR:{HCMA011667952024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer, Personnel Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.

3. The Superintending Engineer Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, North Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, Chennai. ..Appellant(s)

-vs- R.Murugan

CNR:{HCMA011668102024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli-627 007.

-vs- S.Mari

CNR:{HCMA011769072024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Trichy Electricity Distribution circle, Metro,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, Trichy-20. … Appellant(s) -vs- K.Sathiyamoorthy … Respondent(s) W.A.No.796 of 2025 CNR:{HCMA011867612024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tuticorin - 628 002.

-vs- M.Sundarraj

CNR:{HCMA011878722024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution

Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli – 627 007. … Appellants -vs- B.Selvaraj

CNR:{HCMA011933352024}

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Chief Engineer Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No. 144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600002.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Dindugul – 624 002.

-vs- A.Charles … Respondent Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the orders dated 18.03.2024 in W.P.Nos.26019, 26447, 26452, 26451, 26443, 26453, 26450, 26456, 26022, 26029, 26458 and 26025 of 2022.

For Appellants: Mr.Anand Gopalan For M/s.Agam Legal Advocates (in all) For Respondents: Mr.G.Ananda Kumar For M/s.Thamizharasi Law Firm (in all) ***** C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present batch of Intra Court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent have been instituted to assail common writ order dated 18.03.2024 passed in a batch of writ petitions. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) filed present Writ Appeals.

2. Brief facts involved in the present writ appeals are that respondents / writ petitioners have instituted writ of mandamus, directing appellants to pay regular scale of pay to respondents by treating them as regularly appointed Helper from the date on which they were initially appointed as Trainee. Writ Court since allowed writ petitions, TANGEDCO preferred writ appeals.

3. Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would mainly contend that the order of appointment is crystal clear. Respondents were appointed as Helper Trainees on temporary basis on consolidated pay. Training period is stipulated as 24 months. On completion of training period of two years, services of respondents were temporarily regularized in the sanctioned posts in the time scale. He would further contend that the said order of appointment issued in the year 2011 remains unchallenged. Respondents, after regularization of their services in the sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay and after securing promotion to the higher posts, had chosen to file writ petitions, seeking a direction to pay regular scale of pay from the initial date of appointment of respondents as Trainees. Thus, claim of respondents is untenable, since they had accepted the training period, undergone training after regularization of their services on successful completion of training period, secured promotions and thereafter had chosen to file writ petitions after a lapse of nine years, seeking retrospective regular scale of pay by treating training period as regular appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose, by stating that appointment made in the year 2011 was based on the orders of this Court. Contempt petition was filed in the year 2011, which was disposed of on 27.09.2011 and based on the contempt order, appellants issued the order of appointment. Writ Court directed them to give

appointment. Instead of giving regular appointment from the year 2011, appellants had issued appointment orders to respondents as Trainees, which was not in terms of writ order and therefore, claim of respondents is sustainable.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions between parties to the lis.

6. Controversy raised between parties in the present lis is that appointment as Trainee is to be treated as regular appointment or appointment made after completion of training period of two years is to be taken into consideration as regular service.

7. Close reading of the order of appointment issued in the year 2011 would indicate that respondents had been provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Helper (Trainee) on temporary basis in TANGEDCO for a period of two years under 106 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation and will be paid consolidated wages of Rs.3250/- per month. The said order of appointment as Trainee admittedly remains unchallenged. On successful completion of training period of 24 months, services of respondents were regularized in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay.

8. Respondents were subsequently promoted to the higher posts. Writ Petitions came to be instituted in the year 2022 after a lapse of nine years from the date of regularization. In-between, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Thozhilalar Aykkia Sangam filed W.P.No.901 of 2011 and the said writ petition was pending and therefore, respondents have not chosen to file individual writ petitions.

9. May that as it be, yet another question to be raised is that whether a Sangam can maintain a writ petition in respect of the claim of individual employees, regarding appointment and fixation of scale of pay. Fixation of scale of pay is the individual grievance of employees and Association or Sangam cannot maintain a common writ petition. Division Bench of this Court allowed W.A.No.409 of 2021 filed by TANGEDCO. However, the Apex has stayed the judgment of Division Bench on 08.08.2022 and the case is pending.

10. Chapter-X of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations provides for definition. Regulation 87(1) denotes appointed to a Class of Service. Accordingly, "a person is said to be "appointed to a class of service" when in accordance with these regulations or in accordance with the Regulations applicable at the time, as the case may be, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such class of service or commences probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof." Regulation 106 deals about temporary Appointments and Promotions.

11. In the present case, order of appointment as Trainee was issued under Regulation 106 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation. Therefore, it is a temporary appointment to undergo training for a period of 24 months. Pertinently, the order states that consolidated wages of Rs.3250/- per month will be paid. Thus, reading of the order would clearly indicate that appointment was purely on temporary basis on payment of consolidated wages of Rs.3250/- and they had to undergo training for a period of two years. Thereafter, on successful completion of training period, employees were regularized in the sanctioned post in the regular time scale of pay. Then only, they are to be treated as "appointed to a Class of Service" under Regulation 87(1) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation.

12. Therefore, Rule position is unambiguous. Facts established in the present case would reveal that the order of temporary appointment on consolidated wages and to undergo training remains unchallenged. Admittedly, respondents were regularized on successful completion of training period for 24 months and thereafter, they were promoted to the higher posts.

13. Beyond the above fact, relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct the appellants to pay regular scale of pay to respondents, by treating them as regularly appointed Helper. Relief sought for is misconceived, since such a direction in the absence of challenge made against the appointment order passed by employer cannot be granted. That apart, to implement the order of writ Court of the year 2011, another writ petition seeking mandamus is not maintainable. In the present case, contempt petition was filed and thereafter temporary order of appointment was issued. That being the factum, relief sought for to implement the order of writ Court cannot be maintained. Further, there is inordinate delay in filing writ petition and the same ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Writ order impugned is dearth of legal reasoning, warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the present Writ Appeals are allowed. The common writ order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.26019, 26447, 26452, 26451, 26443, 26453, 26450, 26456, 26022, 26029, 26458 and 26025 of 2022 are set aside. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J. AR W.A.Nos.786, 782, 784, 788 to 796 of 2025 22-09-2026