IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)

RESERVED ON : 09.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P. No. 7229 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 7733 of 2021 The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Tami Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO)

Salem – 14. …Petitioner Vs.

1.The Controlling Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour)

Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Yercaud Main Road, Korimedu, Salem – 636 008.

2. S.Palaniappan (PPO. No.81953)

Junior Engineer II Gr. / TNEB / Rtd

70 E, Konangipalayam Road, Kalipatty Post, Alayampatty Via, Namakkal District – 637 501. …Respondents Prayer in W.P.

To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the First respondent in P.G.I.A. No.41 of 2020, quash the order dated 19.01.2021, hold the petition of the 2^nd Respondent as not maintainable and pass further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

Prayer in WMP To stay the operation of the order of the 1^st Respondent in P.G.I.A.No41 of

2020, dated 19.01.2021, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Appearance of Parties:

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan, Advocate For T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocates For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Kumaraval AGP For Respondent 2 : Mr.V.Stalin, Advocate For Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner–TANGEDCO challenging the interim order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the first respondent– Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in P.G.I.A. No. 41 of 2020. By the said order, the Controlling Authority rejected the petitioner’s objection regarding the maintainability of the gratuity claim against TANGEDCO and directed the matter to be posted for further hearing on 03.03.2021. The writ petition was admitted on 19.03.2021, and an interim stay of further proceedings was granted on the same day. Upon service of notice, the contesting second respondent entered appearance through counsel.

3.The petitioner’s case is that the erstwhile Madras Electricity Board was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with effect from 01.07.1957. The 2^nd respondent was engaged as a temporary casual labourer in the year 1971. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 came into force on 01.09.1972. According to the petitioner, employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board whose services were provincialized were not extended the benefits under the P.G. Act, as they were governed by the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme and entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity. Subsequently, members of the non-provincialized staff (i.e., those in the regular work establishment) began demanding extension of the pension scheme that was applicable to provincialized employees.

4.The 2^nd respondent was subsequently made a permanent employee of the Electricity Board, which was later reconstituted as TANGEDCO. By G.O. Ms. No. 699, dated 16.03.1983, the Government of Tamil Nadu exempted the Electricity Board from the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with effect from that date. Pursuant thereto, the Board issued Proceedings No. 5 dated 26.06.1986, whereby it was resolved that Regular Work Establishment (RWE) employees who retired on or after 01.07.1986 would also be brought under the pension scheme. Subsequently, through Board Proceedings No. B.P. 28 dated 08.02.1988, it was clarified that the maximum qualifying service for computation of benefits under the contributory pension scheme would be capped at 33 years. The second respondent retired from service on 31.05.2011.

5.Nearly eight years after his retirement, the 2^nd respondent filed a claim petition before the first respondent–Controlling Authority on 30.09.2019, seeking payment of gratuity. Along with the claim, he also filed an application to condone the delay. According to the 2^nd respondent, he was entitl