Case Note & Summary
The present batch of intra-court appeals was filed to challenge a common writ order dated 18.03.2024, which directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) to pay the respondents a regular scale of pay as if they were regularly appointed Helpers from the date of their initial appointment as Trainees. The respondents had initially been appointed as Helper Trainees on a temporary basis with consolidated wages and underwent a training period of 24 months. After completing their training, their services were regularized, and they were promoted to higher posts. The appellants contended that the respondents' claims were untenable as they had accepted their temporary appointment and subsequently sought retrospective pay after a significant delay. The respondents argued that their initial appointment was based on a court order and that the appellants had failed to comply with the terms of that order. The court analyzed the nature of the appointment and the relevant regulations, concluding that the appointment as Trainee was indeed temporary and did not equate to regular service until the completion of training. The court found that the relief sought by the respondents was misconceived and that the writ petitions were filed after an inordinate delay, warranting rejection. Consequently, the court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the impugned writ order, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Appointment Classification - Temporary Appointment vs Regular Appointment - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation, 2003, Regulation 106 - The court held that the appointment as Trainee was temporary and did not constitute regular service until successful completion of training, thus denying the claim for retrospective pay. (Paras 6-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment as Trainee should be treated as a regular appointment and if the respondents are entitled to a regular scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the common writ order dated 18.03.2024, stating that the appointment as Trainee was temporary and did not constitute regular service until the completion of training. The court also noted the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- temporary appointment
- consolidated wages
- regularization of service
- delay and laches
