Trainee service on consolidated wages counts as regular service only after 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. After successfully completing training, they were regularized in sanctioned posts on the regular time scale and were subsequently promoted.

They later sought regular pay from their initial appointment dates, contending that their trainee appointments did not comply with an earlier writ-court direction; the writ court allowed their petitions. TANGEDCO appealed, arguing that the appointment orders remained unchallenged and that the claims were delayed.

1. Whether the respondents’ appointment as Helpers (Trainees), on temporary terms and consolidated wages, counted as regular appointment and service from the initial appointment date.

2. Whether the respondents could obtain regular pay from their initial appointment dates without challenging their appointment orders, after a substantial delay.

Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations governs temporary appointments and promotions. Under Regulation 87(1), a person is appointed to a class of service when, in accordance with the applicable regulations, the person first discharges the duties of a cadre post or commences the prescribed probation, instruction, or training for its members.

The Court treated the unchallenged appointment terms as governing the respondents’ status and held that a claim for regular pay from an earlier date could not be granted without challenging those terms; it also considered delay and laches relevant.

The Court read the 2011 orders as temporary appointments under Regulation 106, expressly requiring two years of training and providing consolidated wages. Since those orders had not been challenged, the Court held that the respondents’ regular service began only after successful completion of training and regularization in sanctioned posts, not on their initial trainee appointment dates.

Their later promotions did not alter that conclusion. The Court further found that the petitions were brought approximately nine years after regularization and that the requested relief could not be granted without setting aside the appointment orders; it also held that a further writ petition to implement the earlier writ order was not maintainable in the circumstances.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.