Anandhan Vs Tamilnadu Generation of Electricity and

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take legal action against the fake persons appointed in the first respondent corporation on the basis of the report submitted by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Khalid committee and also to appoint the real workers worked in the first respondent corporation

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.6926 of 2025

¶20

as contract labourers.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Raj Kumar (TANGEDCO) For R3 : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondent to take

¶24

legal action against the fake persons appointed in the first respondent corporation based on the report submitted by the Honourable Mr. Justice V. Khalid Committee and also to appoint the real workers worked in the first respondent corporation as contract laborers.

¶25

Upon perusal of the representation submitted by the petitioner and

¶26

the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be that when appointments were made pursuant to the recommendation of the Honourable Mr. Justice Khalid Commission, several fake entries were included. Several persons who had not been working in TNEB/TANGEDCO were clandestinely included. Therefore, the petitioner seeks an inquiry into

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.6926 of 2025

¶30

this matter and the removal of those fake persons.

¶31

This Court had dealt with the history of the said litigation in the order in W.P. No. 34852 of 2023. Long ago, when the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board initiated the recruitment process to fill up 700 posts of helpers, the same was challenged before this Court on the ground that, when the workers had been working for many years as contract laborers without being absorbed, direct recruitment should not be resorted to. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court of India and in the year 1991, the Honourable Supreme Court of India, appointed Honourable Mr. Justice Khalid (retired), to recommend criteria for the recruitment of helpers. The Commission submitted its report, recommending the absorption and regularization of 18,006 contract laborers. The Honourable Supreme Court of India accepted the recommendation and instructed the management of TNEB, later TANGEDCO, not to recruit anyone else until these 18,006 individuals were absorbed. By the year 1998, all 18,006 contract laborers had been absorbed.

¶32

In 1998, an identification process was conducted to determine who

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.6926 of 2025

¶36

was eligible for the payment of ex gratia and in that process, another 8,500 persons who had been regularly engaged since 1993 were identified. Again, in the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, another 15,600 contract labourers were identified and ex gratia payments were extended to them. Subsequently, a 12(3) settlement was entered into between the trade unions and TNEB/TANGEDCO, and further workers were absorbed. Thereafter, board proceedings were initiated to prevent the engagement of any persons as casual labour, and licenses were also obtained under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

¶37

Thus, it can be seen that the entire proceedings took place from 1991 to 2012. Now belatedly in the year 2025, roving enquiry cannot be made on the general allegation of the petitioner. Even now, if the petitioner is able to point out any specific cases where a person has committed fraud under employment, the matter can certainly be looked into, both by TANGEDCO authorities and other relevant authorities. Therefore, the general representation of the petitioner and the omnibus prayer to conduct a roving enquiry cannot be countenanced. It will be open for the petitioner to pinpoint any specific instances and as and when any such representation is made, the same will be

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

conducted.

¶41

W.P.No.6926 of 2025

¶42

looked into by the first respondent and if necessary, an enquiry can be conducted.

¶43