R.Gurusamy, v. The Chief Engineer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.11278 of 2017 and WMP(MD).No.8659 of 2017 R.Gurusamy ....Petitioner Vs 1.The Chief Engineer (Distribution) TANGEDCO K.Pudur Madurai - 7 2.The Superintending Engineer Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle METRO/TANGEDCO K.Pudur, Madurai - 7
...Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent in F.M.vz;. 001416/Nkngh/kkpgt/nge/kJ/ep.m/epgp1/c2/2017 dated 08.03.2017 and of the 1st respondent in F.vz;/005735/Kepm/V.1/Nfh.$.ngh.gb/2016, dated 17.05.2016 and Fwpg;ghiz vz;.122523/V1/2119/Nfh.$.ngh.V/2015 dated 19.02.2015, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to sanction the additional charge allowance to the petitioner for the period from 14.11.2014 to 17.01.2017 based on the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by a Junior Engineer Grade-I of the respondent Electricity Board challenging the order dated 08.03.2017 wherein instead of full additional charges, he was placed only under current duty and the consequential order of the Superintending of Engineer rejecting his request for payment of full additional charge allowance. 2.According to the case of the writ petitioner, he was holding the additional charge of Junior Engineer Grade-I for the second shift for the period between 14.11.2014 to 17.01.2017. However, instead of placing him under full additional charge, orders were issued by the Chief Engineer, as if he is on current duty. Based upon the said order, the Superintending Engineer Electricity Board has rejected the request of the petitioner for payment of full additional charge allowance.
3.The petitioner had relied upon Regulation 49 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation. Regulation 49(i) is extracted as follows:
"49...
49(1)When a Board employee, either permanent or officiating including a reemployed pensioner or a permanent 2/5
employee of Government or a local body, holding a temporary post or officiating in a post under the Board, is appointed to hold full additional charge of one or more posts, additional pay shall be allowed only, if the period of additional charge is more than thirty nine days. In computing the period of additional charge, holidays and casual leave shall also be included." 4.A perusal of the said regulation reveals that if the full additional charge exceeds 39 days, a Board employee would be entitled to receive additional charge allowance. However, no additional pay shall be granted for holding additional charge of current duties of one or more posts. It has further pointed out in the regulations that the additional pay shall not be paid in respect of the period in excess of five months. 5.In view of the regulations, it is clear that the petitioner was not holding full additional charge of one or more post. He continued to be a Junior Engineer Grade-I even though he claims that he was forced to work on both shifts.
6.The contention of the petitioner would clearly reveals that he was not appointed to hold full additional charge, but he had worked only for an extended time on a day.
3/5
7.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.09.2025 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No 4/5
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa Pre-delivery order made in W.P.(MD).No.11278 of 2017 and WMP(MD).No.8659 of 2017 19.09.2025 5/5