Madras High Court
P.Vairavan vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 27 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2018
P.Vairavan ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Secretary,
Secretariat Branch,
145, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintendant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.9160 of 2010,
dated 01.03.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
Page 1 of 8
W.A.(MD)No.1237 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.Antony Arul Raj
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
Standing Counsel for TNEB
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(MD)No.9160 of 2010 dated 01.03.2018, who has not considered the
writ of certiorarified mandamus filed by the appellant herein to quash the
rejection order of the 1st respondent declining to entertain his request to shift
the option exercised by him earlier.
2. The short point is that when the writ petitioner was promoted from the
post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer, he was
given option to choose the pay scale he has thought fit to exercise and retire in
the said option. Before his retirement, he found that his junior was opted for the
other scheme and drawing more monetary benefits. Therefore, he wanted to
revise and shift to the other form, meanwhile he retired from service. His
request was later considered by the 1st respondent and was rejected on the
ground that the option once exercised cannot be revised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
3. Being aggrieved, writ petition was filed. However, learned Single
Judge found that the option exercised by the writ petitioner consciously to
adopt one form of pay fixation cannot be reversed after his superannuation.
Further, the latches in exercising rights to invoke Article 226 by way of
writ petition also taken note by the learned Single Judge by recording that the
request to revise the option one year after rejection order.
4. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal is filed on the ground that the
learned Single Judge failed to take note of the subsequent change of policy by
the Government vide communication dated 23.05.2018, wherein the employees
were given the right to exercise option of reconsidering the change of pay
fixation. Being a matter of continuous cause of action, there cannot be principle
of waiver or latches can be employed to reject the lawful claim of the writ
petitioner. At the time of promotion, the writ petitioner was not put to proper
notice about the advantage and disadvantage of the two plans of pay fixation.
Therefore, soon after exercising one option on realising that it is not monetarily
beneficial to him, the writ petitioner wanted to revise his option and opt for the
other mode of fixation. The said request was not considered immediately and
rejected after he attained superannuation. Therefore, for the delay in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
considering his representation by the respondent cannot be put against the writ
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that by
declining the request of the writ petitioner, pay anomaly prevails the writ
petitioner and his junior. To rectify the anomaly, his request for revising the
option ought to have been entertained.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the writ petitioner when considered for promotion as Executive Engineer
was given option to choose any one of the two pay scale mode. He opted for
one mode and the same was implemented from 17.06.2006. He retired from
service on 30.09.2006. The request for revising the option is not available
under the Rule till he retired from service. Taking advantage of the
communication dated 23.05.2018, issued 12 years after his retirement, the
appellant wants to re-do his earlier exercise.
7. He further submits that the records relied by the appellant reveals that
on 09.12.2005, proceedings promoting Assistant Executive Engineer as
Executive Engineer was issued, in which the appellant name is found at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
Sl.No.64. In the same proceedings, the promotees were given option to choose
any one of the pay scale. The option was exercised by the writ petitioner on
17.02.2006. Accordingly, his pay was fixed under Regulation 33(D) of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and communicated to the writ
petitioner vide proceedings dated 17.06.2006. Recording that he had exercised
option for continuance of the selection grade on the date of promotion and
fixation of pay adding one notional increment to the pay drawn in the selection
grade of the lower post on the date of accrual of increment in accordance to his
option, the pay scale of the writ petitioner being fixed at Rs.16,900 + 175 .00
PP with effect from 01.07.2006. Having accepted and received the said pay on
the revised pay scale, writ petitioner retired on 30.09.2006. Since the option he
has exercised monetarily disadvantage to him and he was drawing lesser pay
than his junior, his request was considered and rejected after his superannuation
vide communication dated 26.08.2008 stating that the request is not feasible.
8. The learned Single Judge taking note of the facts has rightly held that
the request to reconsider the option already exercised cannot be entertained.
Since at that point of time, there was no provision to revise the option once
exercised. Though the learned Single Judge has not mentioned this fact in
detail, the said fact has borne by records and the later change of policy after 10
years cannot be now applied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
9. Therefore, this Court finds that it is too late to revert the option
exercised. Hence, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[G.J., J.] [R.P., J.]
27.02.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
rgm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Secretary,
Secretariat Branch,
145, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintendant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Theni Electricity Distribution Circle,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
rgm
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 12:59:53 pm )
