2025:MHC:2886 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 08.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :16.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A.No.2807 of 2022 and CMP.No.22880 of 2022 E.Anbu ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu General and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

3.The Superintending Engineer, Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District

4.The Superintending Engineer, Chengalpattu Electricity Distribution Circle, Mathuranthagam, Chengalpattu.

...Respondents PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8833 of 2014 dated 10.06.2022.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.D.David Sundar Singh for R1 to R4

JUDGMENT

M.S.RAMESH.J, This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8833 of 2014 dated 10.06.2022.

2. The facts before the Writ Court are as follows. The appellant was initially absorbed as a Regular Assessor (Trainee) under Regulation 92 of the TNEB Service Regulations. After completion of six months of training period, he was absorbed as a Regular Assessor in the time scale of pay of Rs.3,370 - 100 - 6,370 with effect from 24.04.2009. The time scale of pay and the grade pay was subsequently revised to Rs.5,400 - 20,200 + 2,200 (G.P). On 12.02.2014, the grade pay in his time scale was revised and reduced to Rs.5,400 - 20,200 + 1,900 (G.P), without any prior notice of opportunity to the appellant herein.

3. When he had challenged this order dated 12.02.2014 before the Writ Court in W.P.No.8833 of 2014, his claim came to be rejected on

10.06.2022, predominantly on the ground that his conditions of service were governed under the terms of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and since he is deemed to be a workman, he was required to redress his grievance before the Labour Court only. The other reason assigned in the order of the Writ Court was that the Writ Petitioner therein was appointed on compassionate grounds in the post of Assessor Grade II and since the initial appointment is on compassionate grounds, he cannot claim for a higher post. The said order of the Writ Court is put under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the revised order, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, was without any notice to the appellant and therefore, is in violation of principles of natural justice, which aspect was not considered by the Writ Court. Furthermore, degrading the appellant’s post from Regular Assessor to Assessor Grade II and consequentially, reducing his grade pay from Rs.2,200/- to Rs.1,900/-, without calling for any explanation of the proposed reduction, is unjustifiable and illegal.

5. Before the Writ Court, the respondents herein had not filed their counter affidavit.

6. The main ground on which the Writ Petition was rejected is that the conditions of service of the appellant herein is governed under 12(3) settlement and therefore, he had to redress his grievance only before the concerned Labour Court. We do not endorse these views in the order impugned before us.

7. The Constitutional Courts have been consistently holding that even when an alternate remedy to redress the grievances of an employee is available, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained, even without availing the alternate remedy, under certain limited expectations. One such expectations is when there is violation of principles of natural justice, as held in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in [(1998) 8 SCC 1]. While dealing with the scope of entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio