N KUPPAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are 21 petitioners, jointly filed this writ petition seeking a common prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioners against the post shown in the Annexure with effect from the date of their appointment in the erstwhile Vandavasi Rural Electric Co-operative Society or in the alternative from 06.04.2002 the date of take over.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th petitioner has already been appointed by way of direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the 7th petitioner is not forming part of the present writ petition. The Vandavasi Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd. was started in the year 1985 with the subsidy from the State and Central Governments and this was one among the three cooperative societies started in three places in Tamil Nadu namely Vandavasi, Kumbakonam and Thirumayam. These three societies were considered as model societies for supply of electricity to the villages which fall within their respective jurisdiction. These societies were set up only for getting the supply of electricity from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and they have to supply the same to the customers. When these societies were functioning with the above responsibilities, from 06.04.2002 the functions of the society were handed over to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After take over of these societies, they ceased to function as cooperative societies and the petitioners were also appointed on various posts during the year 2000. 11 of the petitioners were appointed as Helpers, 4 as Assessors, 1 as an Office Assistant, 2 as Junior Assistants, 1 as an Driver and 1 as a cleaner. Even before these petitioners were appointed in the erstwhile co-operative society, there were 122 employees working as employees of the cooperative societies. After the appointment of these petitioners, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheyyar by his proceedings dated 27.07.2000 has recommended for increase in the cadre strength of the society from 122 to 156.

(3.) THEREFORE, it goes without saying that the erstwhile Vandavasi Rural Electric Cooperative Society Ltd. started in the year 1985, which was taken over by the respondent Board is in need of a modified cadre strength of 156 for taking care of the day to day affairs of the society. The submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Electricity Board that the appointment of all these 20 petitioners, having not been approved by the appointing authority headed by the Co-operative Societies, are ineligible to get regularisation, is far from acceptance, since these petitioners have become employees of the Electricity Board from the date of take over of the society, more than that, the very same Electricity Board has regularised even contract workers. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court, yet another communication dated 19.02.2011, by which the very same Board has absorbed even the contract labourers working in Thirumayam, Vandavasi and Kumbakonam Rural Electric Cooperative Societies. If that being the case, this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the respondents has filed the counter opposing the claim of the petitioners as they have been working even prior to the date of take over of the society. When the respondents Board had already taken a decision to regularise the services of even the contract labourers working in Kumbakonam and Thirumayam Rural Electric Cooperative Societies and also in the very same Vandavasi Rural Electric Cooperative Societies, taking a different stand opposing the prayer for regularisation of the petitioners would tantamount to sheer discrimination offending Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and hence such an approach cannot be accepted by this Court. As rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P.StateElectricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 6904, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation cannot be denied, after such a long period of service. As mentioned earlier, when the respondents Board had already chosen to regularise even the contract workers, the denial of the prayer for regularisation would amount to discrimination as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners who have been working from 2000-2001 till now are to be regularised in the services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to regularise their services.