High Court · 2024

W.P.No.16118 of 2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:19.03.2024Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDWrit Petition No.16118 of 2018S.M.Devendran.. Petitioner /versus/1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),(formerly TNEB),Rep by its Chairman/Director,144,Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002.2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),Tamil Nadu Generation &Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer,General Construction Circle,TANTRANSCO,Kamaraj Nagar Colony,Attur By-Pass, Selam 636 014... Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018respondent No.3 to re-fix the pension of the petitioner by granting the benefit of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay(Workmen) Regulations, 2009 and provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.For Petitioner :Mr.M.Kavin CastroFor Respondents :Mr.David Sundar Singh Standing Counsel for (TANGEDCO)-------O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to re-fix the pension of the petitioner by granting the benefit of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulation, 2009 and provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.2.The case of the petitioner is that, he was employed as Executive Engineer/Electrical in the third respondent General Construction Circle, Salem. He was retired on 30.11.2007 AN. His pension was fixed based on the last pay drawn as on 30.11.2007. A new wage revision came into effect with effect from 01.12.2007 (i.e) immediately on the next date of 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018his retirement. Though he was also deemed to be retired from the service from 01.12.2007, he was not provided the benefit of the wage revision/Tamil Nadu Electricity Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009. Furthermore, several similarly placed employees were given the benefit to the wage revision with effect from 01.12.2007.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the object of the wage revision vide Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009 is that the wage of the employees, who have rendered a considerable service of five years, are entitled for revision and on that basis, all those employees, who have completed five years of service are provided with the benefit of the wage revision as per the existing policy. Though the petitioner has rendered requisite service, he was deprived of wage revision as per Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009 for the reason that he had retired on 30.11.2007 (i.e.) one day prior to the date of implementation of wage revision (i.e) 01.12.2007 and hence, he sought to allow the writ petition by extending the benefit of wage revision to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 20184. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was retired from service on 30.11.2007. The respondent Board has constituted a Wage Revision Committee consisting of certain Members and Officers of the Board to hold negotiations with the officer's Association for revision of scales of pay, special pays and allowances for the officers with effect from 01.12.2007. After holding several discussions with the TNEB Engineers' Association and TNEB Finance and Accounts Officers Association, the Board passed the orders for the revision of wages of the officers with effect from 01.12.2007 as per Board Proceedings (Per) FB TANGEDCO Pro.No.224, dated 22.11.2009. As the wage revision to the officers of the Board deemed to have come into force on 01.12.2007, the officers, who were on service on 01.12.2007 alone are eligible for the benefit of revision of wages. Since the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for wage revision. 5. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2018 was rejected as his 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018request for revision of pay is against the TNEB Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulation, 2009. The petitioner had approached this Court, after a lapse of 11 years without genuine reason. As per the Pension Rules of Tamil Nadu Government/TANGEDCO, the retired employees of the Board ceased to be an employee of the Board from the date of their superannuation. As such, they are not entitled for the benefit or charge subsequent to their date of retirement. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of 11 years without any plausible explanation or justification and inordinate delay of 11 years in filing this writ petition has not been explained properly and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned respective counsels and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2007 on attaining superannuation. The respondents Board passed the orders for the Revision of Wages with effect from 01.12.2007. As rightly 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, since the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007 (i.e.) prior to the giving effect to the Revision of Wages of the Officers (i.e.) on 01.12.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Wage Revision. 8. Besides this, though the petitioner retired on 30.11.2007 and the respondents Board passed order for the Revision of Wages of the Officers with effect from 01.12.2007, the petitioner did not choose to represent before the respondents Board till 16.03.2018. He has submitted the representation only on 16.03.2018. He filed the writ petition only after lapse of 11 years. The petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay of 11 years in filing the writ petition. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches also. 9. For the reasons stated above, in view of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service prior to giving effect to the revision of wages, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the said 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018representation. As such, he is not entitled for the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. The petitioner failed to make out any case on facts or law for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 19.03.2024Index:yes/noSpeaking order/non speaking orderNeutral citation:yes/noariTo:1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),(formerly TNEB),Rep by its Chairman/Director,144,Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 20182.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),Tamil Nadu Generation &Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer,General Construction Circle,TANTRANSCO,Kamaraj Nagar Colony,Attur By-Pass, Selam 636 014.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018BATTU DEVANAND,J.ariW.P.No.16118 of 201819.03.20249/9

W.P.No.16118 of 2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:19.03.2024Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDWrit Petition No.16118 of 2018S.M.Devendran.. Petitioner /versus/1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),(formerly TNEB),Rep by its Chairman/Director,144,Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002.2.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),Tamil Nadu Generation &Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer,General Construction Circle,TANTRANSCO,Kamaraj Nagar Colony,Attur By-Pass, Selam 636 014... Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018respondent No.3 to re-fix the pension of the petitioner by granting the benefit of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay(Workmen) Regulations, 2009 and provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.For Petitioner :Mr.M.Kavin CastroFor Respondents :Mr.David Sundar Singh Standing Counsel for (TANGEDCO)-------O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to re-fix the pension of the petitioner by granting the benefit of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulation, 2009 and provide all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.2.The case of the petitioner is that, he was employed as Executive Engineer/Electrical in the third respondent General Construction Circle, Salem. He was retired on 30.11.2007 AN. His pension was fixed based on the last pay drawn as on 30.11.2007. A new wage revision came into effect with effect from 01.12.2007 (i.e) immediately on the next date of 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018his retirement. Though he was also deemed to be retired from the service from 01.12.2007, he was not provided the benefit of the wage revision/Tamil Nadu Electricity Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009. Furthermore, several similarly placed employees were given the benefit to the wage revision with effect from 01.12.2007.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the object of the wage revision vide Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009 is that the wage of the employees, who have rendered a considerable service of five years, are entitled for revision and on that basis, all those employees, who have completed five years of service are provided with the benefit of the wage revision as per the existing policy. Though the petitioner has rendered requisite service, he was deprived of wage revision as per Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulations, 2009 for the reason that he had retired on 30.11.2007 (i.e.) one day prior to the date of implementation of wage revision (i.e) 01.12.2007 and hence, he sought to allow the writ petition by extending the benefit of wage revision to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 20184. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was retired from service on 30.11.2007. The respondent Board has constituted a Wage Revision Committee consisting of certain Members and Officers of the Board to hold negotiations with the officer's Association for revision of scales of pay, special pays and allowances for the officers with effect from 01.12.2007. After holding several discussions with the TNEB Engineers' Association and TNEB Finance and Accounts Officers Association, the Board passed the orders for the revision of wages of the officers with effect from 01.12.2007 as per Board Proceedings (Per) FB TANGEDCO Pro.No.224, dated 22.11.2009. As the wage revision to the officers of the Board deemed to have come into force on 01.12.2007, the officers, who were on service on 01.12.2007 alone are eligible for the benefit of revision of wages. Since the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for wage revision. 5. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2018 was rejected as his 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018request for revision of pay is against the TNEB Revised Scales of Pay (Workmen) Regulation, 2009. The petitioner had approached this Court, after a lapse of 11 years without genuine reason. As per the Pension Rules of Tamil Nadu Government/TANGEDCO, the retired employees of the Board ceased to be an employee of the Board from the date of their superannuation. As such, they are not entitled for the benefit or charge subsequent to their date of retirement. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition was filed after a lapse of 11 years without any plausible explanation or justification and inordinate delay of 11 years in filing this writ petition has not been explained properly and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned respective counsels and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2007 on attaining superannuation. The respondents Board passed the orders for the Revision of Wages with effect from 01.12.2007. As rightly 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, since the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007 (i.e.) prior to the giving effect to the Revision of Wages of the Officers (i.e.) on 01.12.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Wage Revision. 8. Besides this, though the petitioner retired on 30.11.2007 and the respondents Board passed order for the Revision of Wages of the Officers with effect from 01.12.2007, the petitioner did not choose to represent before the respondents Board till 16.03.2018. He has submitted the representation only on 16.03.2018. He filed the writ petition only after lapse of 11 years. The petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay of 11 years in filing the writ petition. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches also. 9. For the reasons stated above, in view of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service prior to giving effect to the revision of wages, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the said 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018representation. As such, he is not entitled for the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. The petitioner failed to make out any case on facts or law for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 19.03.2024Index:yes/noSpeaking order/non speaking orderNeutral citation:yes/noariTo:1.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),(formerly TNEB),Rep by its Chairman/Director,144,Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 20182.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),Tamil Nadu Generation &Distribution Corporation Limited,(TANGEDCO),144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer,General Construction Circle,TANTRANSCO,Kamaraj Nagar Colony,Attur By-Pass, Selam 636 014.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16118 of 2018BATTU DEVANAND,J.ariW.P.No.16118 of 201819.03.20249/9