Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan Vs The chief Secretary — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan Vs The chief SecretaryA.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan v. The chief Secretary

Dismissed¶29

A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan v. The chief Secretary

Service Law – Regularization – TANGEDCO – Khalid Commission guidelines

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 23.06.2025 (G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar, JJ.; order by G.R.Swaminathan, J.). Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against dismissal of W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 seeking regularization of services in TANGEDCO based on Justice V.Khalid Commission guidelines; appellant alleged contract labour work during 1987-1997. Held: even if the claim were correct, relief cannot be granted; claim not lodged before the Khalid Commission and stale, being raised by representation a quarter century after the absorption process ended on 15.02.1999; laches; writ appeal dismissed with no costs. Keywords: regularization, contract labour, Khalid Commission, TANGEDCO, laches, stale claim, representation.

What did the court decide?

Even assuming the appellant's claim that he worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997 is correct, relief of regularization cannot be granted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be allowed by setting aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's petition seeking regularization of his services by TANGEDCO on the basis of the Khalid Commission guidelines. +1 more

Court's answer

Even assuming the appellant's claim that he worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997 is correct, relief of regularization cannot be granted.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner does not appear to have lodged his claim before the Khalid Commission, and in any event he cannot revive a stale claim by giving a representation a quarter century after the entire absorption process was completed.

Key takeaways

There is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Regularization - TANGEDCO - Khalid Commission guidelines - Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition - Appellant claimed contract labour service between 1987 and 1997 but did not lodge his claim before the Khalid Commission, whose absorption process concluded on 15.02.1999 - Stale claim cannot be revived by a representation made a quarter century after completion of the process - Claim barred by laches - No ground to interfere with the learned single Judge's order - Writ appeal dismissed, no costs.

A

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 23.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan

... Appellant / Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), 144, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002.

2.The Superintending Engineer / Division, The Management of Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Tirunelveli-627 011.

3.The Superintending Engineer / Division, The Management of Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Central Office, Tuticorin-628 004. ... Respondents / Respondents

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023, dated 17.12.2024 and allow the relief sought for in the said writ petition.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Gandhiammal

For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Advit Law Chamber

ORDER

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for TANGEDCO.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2024 dismissing W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 filed by the appellant herein. The appellant herein filed the said writ petition for directing TANGEDCO to regularize his services on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Justice V.Khalid Commission. The claim of the appellant is that he had worked as a contract labour during the period between 1987 to 1997. Even if we assume that the writ petitioner's claim is correct, still relief cannot be granted.

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

The learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO points out that

the Khalid Commission gave its report in the year 1991 and the process of absorbing the persons identified by the Khalid Commission concluded on 15.02.1999. In fact, during this period, no fresh recruitment took place. Persons who felt aggrieved by their exclusion raised industrial disputes. The writ petitioner does not appear to have lodged his claim before the Khalid Commission. In any event, he cannot revive a stale claim by giving a representation a quarter century after the entire process was completed. The learned single Judge non-suited the appellant herein primarily on the ground of laches. Even according to the appellant, he was aged about 56 years in the year 2023. There is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 23.06.2025

rmi Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.

rmi

W.A(MD) No.1302 of 2025

23.06.2025

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ appeal should be allowed by setting aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's petition seeking regularization of his services by TANGEDCO on the basis of the Khalid Commission guidelines.¶17
The court held
Even assuming the appellant's claim that he worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997 is correct, relief of regularization cannot be granted.ratio¶23
2.
Whether the appellant, who claims to have worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997 but did not lodge his claim before the Khalid Commission, could revive a stale claim by means of a representation made about a quarter century after the absorption process concluded, notwithstanding laches.¶28
The court held
The writ petitioner does not appear to have lodged his claim before the Khalid Commission, and in any event he cannot revive a stale claim by giving a representation a quarter century after the entire absorption process was completed.ratio¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 17.12.2024 of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 filed by the appellant, which sought regularization of his services by TANGEDCO on the basis of the Khalid Commission guidelines.¶23
Learned single Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court · 17.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 seeking a direction to TANGEDCO to regularize his services on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Justice V.Khalid Commission, claiming he had worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997.¶23
Prior proceeding
As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO, the Khalid Commission gave its report in 1991 and the absorption of persons identified by it concluded on 15.02.1999, with no fresh recruitment during that period; the appellant did not lodge his claim before the Commission.¶28
Prior proceeding
The learned single Judge non-suited the appellant primarily on the ground of laches.¶28

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan¶7
Mr.K.Gandhiammal
respondent
The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO)¶10
Mr.Anand Gopalan
respondent
The Superintending Engineer / Division, The Management of Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Tirunelveli-627 011¶12
Mr.Anand Gopalan
respondent
The Superintending Engineer / Division, The Management of Electricity Board, (TANGEDCO), Central Office, Tuticorin-628 004¶13
Mr.Anand Gopalan

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶21
K.RAJASEKARmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Jun 2025 · June
Registered: 8 May 2025
Case no.: WA(MD)/1302/2025
CNR: HCMD010403052025
Bench: G.r.swaminathan K.rajasekar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan K.rajasekar

S.Ramesh Kumar Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government
20 Jun 2025
The Secretary to the Government Vs S Subburam
20 Jun 2025
The Superintendent of Police Vs I.Shiny
20 Jun 2025
The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.R.R.Bapuji
23 Jun 2025
The General Manager Vs P. Murugaprabhu
23 Jun 2025
The Director (Esi) Vs G Kaleeswari
23 Jun 2025

Cite this judgement

A.Ganesapandy @ Ganesan v. The chief Secretary, WA(MD)/1302/2025 (MAD), decided on 23 June 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 17.12.2024 of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 filed by the appellant, which sought regularization of his services by TANGEDCO on the basis of the Khalid Commission guidelines.Learned single Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court · 17.12.2024
Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.24151 of 2023 seeking a direction to TANGEDCO to regularize his services on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Justice V.Khalid Commission, claiming he had worked as contract labour between 1987 and 1997.
As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO, the Khalid Commission gave its report in 1991 and the absorption of persons identified by it concluded on 15.02.1999, with no fresh recruitment during that period; the appellant did not lodge his claim before the Commission.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and K.RAJASEKAR

Parties & counsel