Temporary trainee service on consolidated wages does not qualify for regular pay before regularisation.

The respondents were appointed in 2011 as Helper Trainees on a temporary basis under Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, for two years and on consolidated wages of ₹3,250 per month.

On successfully completing training, they were regularised in sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay and were later promoted.

In 2022, they sought a mandamus directing TANGEDCO to pay them the regular scale from their initial appointment as trainees.

The Single Judge allowed their writ petitions; TANGEDCO appealed.

Whether the respondents’ appointment as Helper Trainees counted as regular appointment to the service, entitling them to the regular time scale from the start of training.

Whether the respondents could obtain that relief by mandamus without challenging their 2011 appointment orders, particularly after delay.

Regulation 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations defines appointment to a class of service by reference to when a person first discharges the duties of a cadre post or commences prescribed probation, instruction or training.

Regulation 106 governs temporary appointments and promotions.

The Court treated the appointment orders’ terms—temporary trainee status, a prescribed training period and consolidated wages—as controlling: regular service in the sanctioned post and regular time scale followed only after successful completion of training.

A mandamus granting the requested relief could not be issued without a challenge to the appointment orders; the Court also held the claim liable to fail for delay and laches.

The Court found that the respondents’ 2011 orders expressly appointed them as temporary trainees for two years on consolidated wages, and those orders had not been challenged.

Their services were regularised in sanctioned posts only after successful completion of training, and they were subsequently promoted.

Because the writ petitions were filed in 2022, about nine years after regularisation, the Court held that the respondents could not use mandamus to secure retrospective regular pay without first challenging the appointment terms; the delay also weighed against relief.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.