WA/1733/2024 of TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION Vs M. SELVAKUMAR on 24 August 2026

JUDGMENT

Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J. The unsuccessful respondents in W.P. No.2468 of 2020 are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent vide letter No.287/Ni.P.2/Ni.U.2//Ko.Pension/2019, dated 17.09.2019 and to direct the respondents to include him under the Old Pension Scheme with (GPF) benefits that existed prior to the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is a physically disabled person with a disability in his left leg. He studied upto PUC, but did not pass. In 1980, he joined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a contract labourer at the Marandahalli Construction. He worked there for several years and also under PCB and was waiting for his absorption. During that period, his father, M.Munusamy, who was working as a Wireman in the Office of the Junior Engineer (O&M), Pennagaram, suffered an electrocution accident on 07.02.1989. Consequently, his father was declared medically invalidated and was retired from service before attaining the age of 50. In order to take care of his father, the petitioner could not continue working as a contract labourer. On

01.02.1992, he made an application seeking employment. The second respondent rejected his request vide order dated 12.05.1992, on the ground that the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit of 30 years. The petitioner challenged the rejection order in W.P. No. 8942 of 1997, which was subsequently allowed by an order dated 17.11.2000.

4. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.01.2001. Since there was no response, the writ petitioner escalated the issue to the Commissioner, State Commission for the Physically Challenged by a representation dated 06.08.2001. The Commissioner, by proceedings dated 25.02.2002, directed the 1st respondent to provide suitable employment to the petitioner. After a lapse of two and a half years, the 2nd respondent by memo dated 26.03.2003, informed the petitioner that his employment had been considered and recommended, and that an appointment order would follow. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 07.04.2003 and 06.05.2003, directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking and produce his original educational certificates for verification. Finally, by an order dated 16.05.2003, the third respondent appointed the petitioner as a Helper Trainee and the petitioner joined the service on 13.06.2003. Upon successful completion of his probation, he was regularised as a Helper Trainee in 2005. He was later promoted to Commercial Assistant in 2007 and subsequently to Commercial Inspector in 2009. Having rendered 13 years of service, the petitioner retired on 29.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to place him under the Old Pension GPF Scheme and disburse all consequential pensionary benefits, but the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 17.09.2019.

5. The writ petitioner claimed that following his appointment on 13.06.2003, he repeatedly requested the authorities to place him under the Old Pension Scheme, however, his request yielded no result. Although this Court, by an order dated 07.11.2000 in W.P. No. 8942 of 1997, had directed the 1st respondent to take action within four weeks, the said direction was not complied with. It was only after the intervention of the Commissioner, State Commission for the Disabled, that employment was finally provided. Consequently, due to administrative lapses on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was wrongfully deprived of his benefits under the Old Pension Scheme. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to include him under the Old Pension Scheme by stetting aside the impugned order which rejected the petitioner’s claim.

6. The respondents filed a counter in the writ petition opposing the petitioner's request, contending that the petitioner never challenged the appointment date of 13.06.2003 and claimed a retrospective appointment at that time. Furthermore, after a lapse of 17 years, the petitioner moved the writ court seeking inclusion under the Old Pension Scheme, and as such, the writ petition is hit by laches.

7. The writ court, after examining the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the appointment order was issued with a delay for which, the writ petitioner could not be subjected to hardship. Accordingly, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to include the writ petitioner under the old pension scheme with GPF as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

8. We heard the submissions of the counsel for appellants as well as the respondent.

9. The counsel for the appellants argued that the writ petitioner made the claim after a delay of 17 years. Following the initial appointment, the writ petitioner received two promotions based on the original order, as such, the claim is hit by laches. Furthermore, the writ petitioner never challenged the appointment date of 13.06.2003 during his service and therefore, is deemed to have accepted to the said date of joining. The counsel further argued that the writ petition was not to change his date of joining to any date prior to 01.04.2003. So long as his date of joining remains as 13.06.2003, the writ petitioner is eligible only for the New Pension Scheme. Moreover, on the date of petitioner's actual date of appointment, the old pension scheme was no longer available. The petitioner who entered the department on a compassionate basis is not entitled to seek retrospective appointment, as doing so would violate service jurisprudence. As per the regulation 87 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulations, framed under Section 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity

(Supply) Act, 1948, only the date of joining should be reckoned for the purposes of pensionary benefits. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Another, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 as well as the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 02.07.2026 in W.A.No.407 of 2026 and prayed for the writ appeal to be allowed.

10. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent in the writ appeal, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar Vs. J&K Public Service Commission and Another, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 182, contended that the delay on the part of the department in issuing the appointment order should not be passed on to the employee. The relevant portion is extracted as follows: “16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6-3-1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 6-3-1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs.5000.”

11. However, the aforementioned judgment is entirely inapplicable to the present case as it does not relate to a compassionate appointment. In the said judgment, the person seeking the relief on par with other earlier appointees who were selected under the very same notification. Only because of that fact, the Supreme Court held that all candidates from the same batch should be treated on par and the delay in issuing the appointment order is not correct.

12. The other judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, relied upon by the respondent in WP (C) No.373/2026 dated 16.04.2026, also pertains to a case where several candidates were appointed under a specific notification. Therefore, it is entirely distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case.

13. Furthermore, the next judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent, namely the judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 126 of 2025, pertains to a case where the petitioner was not allowed to join duty despite the issuance of an appointment order.

14. Similarly, the other case relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, namely the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 01.06.2006 passed in W.A.(MD) No.771 of 2026, also involves the same recruitment notification where appointment orders were issued on different

dates.

15. All these judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The writ petitioner in the present case was appointed on a compassionate basis and never challenged the initial appointment order to seek retrospective effect during his tenure. Instead, he has approached this Court to claim a retrospective appointment all of a sudden after his retirement.

16. In the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.407 of 2026, dated 2.7.2026 to which one of us was a party, it has been clearly held in paragraph 3, 6 and 7 that; “3. ..... The terms and conditions of appointment and training are also stipulated in the appointment order dated 27.5.2003. The respondent continued in service and retired on 31.03.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation. After a lapse of two years from the date of retirement, he filed Writ Petition in WP.No.6103 of 2020, claiming that he must be granted the benefits under the old pension scheme. 4.. 5..

6. This court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties in the lis on hand. Let us now consider the definition of appointment under the service regulations. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board service regulations Chapter X provides definitions. Regulation 87(1) states as follows: 87(1) Appointed to a class of service: “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.” In the context of the above service regulations, the order of appointment issued by the appointing authority vide memo dated 27.05.2003 clearly indicates that the respondent was selected for appointment as Assessor (trainee) under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds and the terms and conditions for training have been provided in the said appointment order. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appointment has been made vide proceedings dated 27.05.2003. However, the respondent claims that date of recommendation made by the authority in letter dated 28.02.2003 is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of old pension scheme benefits.

7. This Court is of the considered view that the date of application or date of processing of application or the recommendation would not confer any right on the applicant to seek appointment. Only after appointment of a person into service the service right accrues. The processes or the recommendations or participation in the selection would not confer any service right. Therefore, the very basis for claiming the benefit of old pension scheme based on the recommendation dated 28.02.2003 is untenable and beyond the scope of the principles of service jurisprudence. In the present case, the date of actual appointment was made in memo dated 27.05.2003 and the said date alone is to be taken into consideration for grant of service benefits and the pension benefits under the rules applicable. New pension scheme came into force with effect from 01.04.2003. Therefore the respondent is eligible to avail the benefit of the contributory pension scheme (new pension scheme). Any erroneous entry corrected subsequently per se would not provide any right to claim the benefit under the Old pension scheme. Thus the writ Court has committed an error ascertaining the service right of the respondent which would accrue only from the date of actual appointment and not from the date of recommendation.

17. Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned judgment, it is very clear that the writ petitioner’s claim for retrospective appointment, preferred after a delay of 17 years and after having secured promotions during that period, solely for the purpose of availing the Old Pension Scheme, is legally unsustainable.

18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the Writ Court, and consequently, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Judgment made in WA No. 1733 of 2024 02.09.2026