Madras High Court
V. Sellapillai vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.9890 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 23.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 9890 of 2021
V. Sellapillai,
Son of P.Venkatesan,
No.7/204, Balakrishnan Street,
Cantonment,
Pallavaram, Chennai – 600043. …Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
“N.P.K.K.R.Maaligai”
144/800, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer (South II),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
110 – KV S.S. Compound,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.
3. The Executive Engineer (O & M),
Tambaram Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
110 – KV S.S. Compound,
Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. …Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
W.P.No.9890 of 2021
Prayer in W.P.
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 26.02.2021 in
Lr.No.009350/Adm1/A2/F.COURT CASE/2021 and quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondents to absorb the Petitioner in the service of
the TANGEDCO with all monetary and other attendant benefits and thus render
justice.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : M/s. K.Selvaraj and Sugirdha Selvaraj, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan, Advocate
For M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order
dated 26.02.2021 passed by the second respondent, namely, the Superintending
Engineer (South II), TANGEDCO, Chennai – 600078. Earlier, the petitioner
had approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 10761 of 2020, seeking a
direction to the respondent-TANGEDCO to regularise his services in terms of
Board Proceedings No. 9 dated 09.01.2008, and to consider his representation
dated 09.07.2020. Pursuant thereto, the said representation was disposed of by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
order dated 26.08.2020. This Court, in paragraph 4 of the order, issued the
following directions:
“4. In that view of the matter, this Court without expressing any
view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the
Petitioner, requires the concerned authority of TANGEDCO to
examine the claim of the Petitioner for absorption in service in
terms of the Settlement dated 10.08.2007 entered by TNEB with
the Labour Unions under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, which has been given effect in the Board Proceedings
in (Per) B.P. (FB) No. 44 dated 06.09.2007 and Per.B.P.
(CHAIRMAN) No. 9 dated 09.01.2008 issued by the
Administrative Branch of TANGEDCO, in the following
manner:-
(i)The Petitioner shall submit his application to the
Superintending Engineer (South II), TANGEDCO, Chennai along
with a copy of the same to the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil
Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Eighth
Floor, Eastern Wing, NPKRR Maligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai
– 600 002 supported by relevant documents to substantiate their
claim for absorption in service, on or before 30.09.2020;
(ii) If the concerned authority after the scrutiny of the application
is not satisfied with the prescribed requirements or eligibility
criteria for extending that benefit to the Petitioner, the
deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to him
requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less
than 10 working days that may be granted for that purpose.
(iii)In the event of the concerned authority not being satisfied
with the compliance of the requirements even thereafter, an
enquiry shall be conducted affording opportunity of personal
hearing to the Petitioner to explain his position in that regard
(iv)Thereafter, the application of the Petitioner shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
considered by the concerned authority on merits and in
accordance with law dealing with each of the contentions and a
reasoned order shall be passed, which shall be communicated to
the Petitioner under written acknowledgment by 31.12.2020.
(v)The report of action taken shall be filed in the Registry of this
Court by 06.01.2021.”
3.Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the second respondent passed the
impugned order dated 26.02.2021. After setting out the background and
circumstances under which the Electricity Board issued Board Proceedings No.
9, the petitioner was informed that he was not eligible for the benefits
contemplated therein. The reasons for such rejection were detailed in paragraph
13 of the said order. It is this order that is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
4.When the matter was taken up on 21.04.2021, the writ petition was
admitted. Pursuant to notice, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit
dated 08.06.2022. It was informed that the petitioner was not identified either
by the Committee constituted by the Board for the identification of contract
labourers on 08.08.1998, or by the Committee formed pursuant to the
settlement dated 10.08.2007. It was further stated that the petitioner’s reliance
on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 was misplaced and not relevant to the
exercise undertaken by the respondent. Along with the counter affidavit, the 2nd
respondent also filed the minutes of the Committee constituted for
regularisation of contract labourers not covered by the 12(3) settlement dated
10.08.2007, in accordance with Board Proceedings (PER) B.P. (CH) No. 9
(Administrative Branch), dated 09.01.2008, recorded on 05.01.2021.
5.In light of the factual findings recorded against the petitioner, no
grounds are made out for entertaining the writ petition. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon certain unreported decisions wherein, in similar
circumstances, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners therein to work out
their remedies before an appropriate forum. However, this Court is not inclined
to grant such liberty in the present case, particularly when the Board
Proceedings dated 09.01.2008—under which certain benefits were extended to
eligible workmen—are more than 17 years old, and the petitioner’s alleged
cause of action pertains to events that occurred nearly two decades ago. At this
distance of time, no right can be revived by directing the petitioner to approach
any unspecified forum. This Court cannot, under the guise of granting liberty,
breathe life into a stale or extinguished cause of action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
“N.P.K.K.R.Maaligai”
144/800, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer (South II),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
110 – KV S.S. Compound,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.
3. The Executive Engineer (O & M),
Tambaram Division,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),
110 – KV S.S. Compound,
Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:41 pm )
