Madras High Court
WP/37337/2007 of N. KESAVAN Vs TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD on 26 October 2026
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
and MP Nos.1 of 2007, 1 & 1 of 2009
WP No.37337/2007
CNR:{HCMA010148452007}
1. N. Kesavan
2. P. Muralidharan
3. A.Ziaullah
4. K.Rasappa
5. R.Jayaraman
6. P.Easwaramoorthy
7. T.Vasudevan
8. R.Balakrishnan
9. B.Allaudheen
10.C.Ponnuswamy
11.K.Thangarajan
12.S.I.Ahamed
13.N.Gunasekaran
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
14.A.Gopal
15.T.Mariappan
16.S.Kejapal
17.S.Rathinavel
18.A.Nedunchezhian
19.N.Krishnamoorthy
20.A.Ilango
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Workshop Circle, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.
3. K.Palanivel,
Junior Engineer - Operation & Efficiency, SE/Mechanical II, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to promote the petitioners to JE Grade-I, placing them above the 3rd respondent with all monetary and consequential benefits based on the Award of the Labour Court, Salem, in ID.No.104/95 dt: 28.2.97 as
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
confirmed by the judgment of this Court dt: 6.7.06 in WP.No.2130/1998, award costs.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Govardhanan
for M/s.Row and Reddy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.Rajkumar,
Standing Counsel (TANGEDCO)
WP No. 683 of 2009
CNR: {HCMA010187582009}
T.Selvaraj
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Chairman Engineer/Personnel, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Workshop Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mettur Dam – 1.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.1035/Ni.Pi./U3/Ko.Thani/08-2, dt 20.12.08, quash the same and forbear
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
the respondents from withdrawing the benefits given as per Award dated 28.02.97 in I.D.No.104/95 of the Labour Court, Salem as confirmed by this Court in the order dated 06.07.06 in W.P.No.2130/98 by treating the petitioner on par with Mr.Palanivel.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Manish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Rajkumar,
Standing Counsel (TANGEDCO)
WP No. 684/2009
CNR: {HCMA010187642009}
S.Selvakumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Chairman Engineer/Personnel, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Mettur Workshop Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Mettur Dam – 1.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.1035/Ni.Pi./U3/Ko.Thani/08-2, dt 20.12.08, quash the same and direct the respondents not to cancel the order in Office Memo No.370/Adm/A3/F/Promotion/06, dt 12.1.07, by giving the petitioner’s promotion and seniority on par with Mr.K.Palanivel with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Manish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Rajkumar,
Standing Counsel (TANGEDCO)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
It is the case of the writ petitioners that they are on par with Mr.P.Kannan, who was promoted by way of I.D.No.104 of 1995 dated 28.02.1997, which was subsequently confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.2130 of 1998 dated 06.07.2006. The petitioners relied upon paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, which read as under: …. “4. The Labour Court gave a finding that without getting option from the said P.Kannan, the other Juniors were given promotion and if option was obtained from P.Kannan, he would have opted to go for other stream and
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
could have got promotion earlier to the said four persons. Both the posts are interchangeable and the same is also accepted by the Board by preparing common seniority list in the year 1995. Therefore, the action of the petitioner management without obtaining option from P.Kannan, was found erroneous by the Labour Court. On any account admittedly the said Kannan being the senior, is entitled to get pay protection as senior. Hence Kannan is entitled to get his pay fixed under Fundamental Rule 22 (b).
5. As the petitioner Board itself issued a common seniority list bringing all the persons in the same seniority list, taking note of their entry into the service, P. Kannan is entitled to get his due seniority. The Labour Court on a finding of fact, came to the conclusion that the said P.Kannan, who is senior, having been denied promotion, directed the management to give promotion on the date when the other four junior persons were given promotion and to place P.Kannan above in the seniority list. The said factual finding cannot be treated as perverse finding….”
2. The respondents contended that this Court ought not to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that if the petitioners have any grievances, they must approach the Labour Court
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
just as the other individuals did. On these grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. This Court, in its order dated 06.07.2006 in W.P.No.2130 of 1998, clearly stated that Mr.P.Kannan is entitled to promotion, and the re-fixation of his seniority has also been carried out. This Court also directed the management to re-fix his pay as per Fundamental Rule 22(b).
5. The case of the writ petitioners is that they are on par with Mr.P.Kannan. However, the issue regarding seniority can only be considered by the Labour Court if the parties approach it by way of separate Industrial Dispute applications.
6. In view of the same, the writ petitioners are at liberty to approach the Labour Court for appropriate relief, citing the case of Mr.P.Kannan. If such an application is filed, the Labour Court is directed to consider the case
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
on its merits without insisting on the limitation period, and to pass appropriate orders. The Labour Court is also directed to take note of the order in W.P.No.2130 of 1998 regarding its applicability, and to dispose of the matter within a period of four (4) months from the date of filing of the application.
7. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. 26-10-2026 (3/3) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Sni
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
To
1. The Chairman Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Old No.800, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Workshop Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam – 1, Salem District.
WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. Sni WP Nos.37337 of 2007, 683 & 684 of 2009 26-10-2026