W.P.No.7231 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.7231 of 2016
K.Chandran (Sr.Driver) ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer / Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
NPKRR Maaligai, 8th Floor,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Generation Circle / Kundah,
Kundah Bridge Post,
The Nilgiris – 643 219. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on
the file of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Letter
No.073980/473/G.58/G.581/ 2015-2 dated 26.11.2015 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner permanently in the Post
of Helper w.e.f. 29.01.2001.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7231 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Viayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Haroon AL Rasheed
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
ORDER
The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for retrospective permanent absorption from 29.01.2001 in respondent / Board's Services is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that he was working as Contract Labourer at Kundah Hydro Generation Circle of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Helper during the period from 04.11.1996 to 05.08.2005 in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Kundah. The respondent in Board proceedings in B.P.(FB) No.22 dated 14.05.1999, decided for permanent absorption of contract labourers by creating a regular post of Helper. Accordingly, the contract labourers, who all are qualified as per the Board proceedings, are considered for inclusion of their names in the list for permanent absorption. The contract labourers, who have completed 480 days of services were absorbed permanently. The list was published initially on 02.05.2001 and the name of the petitioner was not found in the said list. The petitioner Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 approached the authorities concerned for inclusion of his name in the first list dated 02.05.2001.
3. The petitioner states that he had completed 480 days of service during the period from 01.05.1999 to 31.12.2000, which was the period taken up by the respondent for consideration. Subsequently, the name of the writ petitioner was included for absorption to the post of Helper in the second list prepared on 09.02.2005 and the name of the petitioner found in Serial No.1. The petitioner states that he had completed 480 days of service on 31.12.2000 and his name was omitted without any valid reason. Therefore, he is entitled for absorption with effect from the year 2001 onwards.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the Attendance Register maintained by the respondents, the petitioner had completed 480 working days during the relevant point of time from 01.05.1999 to 31.12.2000. In view of the inclusion of name of the petitioner in the second list dated 09.02.2005, the petitioner lost his seniority and other service benefits. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 not considered. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25121 of 2015 and this Court passed an order on 13.08.2015, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 22.06.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the name of the writ petitioner was included in Serial No.1 in the second list dated 09.02.2005. The petitioner had completed 480 days of service as on 31.12.2000 and therefore, his name ought to have been included in the first list itself. That apart, in the first list, one Mr.M.Rajendra Kumar had not joined and therefore, the authorities ought to have been included the name of the writ petitioner in the first list published on 02.05.2001. If at all the name of the petitioner was included in the first list, he would have been permanently absorbed along with other candidates, who were absorbed permanently in the year 2001.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the attendance particulars and relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4003 of 2001 dated 25.08.2008, wherein, this Court directed for permanent Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 absorption of 295 contract labourers as Helpers.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised by the petitioner by stating that on 14.05.1999, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued Board proceedings (BP) 22, issuing orders for absorption of contract labourers working in the following four Hydro Generation Circles:
(i) Kadamparai
(ii) Erode
(iii) Tirunelveli, and
(iv) Kundah As on 05.01.1998, the contract labourers in the four Hydro Generation Circles were 849 as detailed below: (i) Kadamparai 186 (ii) Erode 198
(iii) Tirunelveli, and 221
(iv) Kundah 244 849 Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016
8. By the Proceedings of Member Generation dated 19.05.1999, a Committee was to be constituted to identify the eligible contract labourers.
The eligibility criteria were that the concerned contract labourer should have been in the service of the Board / Contractor and should have worked for 480 days in the period of 24 months from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998.
9. On 22.06.1999, a statement showing the service particulars of contract labourers in the four Hydro Generation Circles as on 05.01.1998 and 28.02.1998 was prepared. It showed that none of them satisfied the criteria of having worked for 480 days in the said period, i.e. from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998.
10. On 29.1.2001, BP 3 was issued that based on seniority, 500 contract labourers in the four Hydro Generation Circles may be absorbed as Helpers as detailed below:
S.No. Name of Circle No. of Labourer 1 Kadamparai 120 2 Erode 126 3 Tirunelveli 149 4 Kundah 105 Total 500
11. The Petitioner was working in Power House II, Kundah. Out of Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 105 contract labourers allotted to Kundah Generation Circle, only 21 were to be appointed in Power House II, Kundah. Accordingly, they were appointed as Helpers with effect from 29.01.2001. The remaining unselected 329 contract labourers in the four Hydro Generation Circles were continued to be engaged directly by the Board as contract labourers on daily wages. Out of 329 contract labourers, only 295 contract labourers were on the roll as on 05.08.2005 and as on 05.08.2005 they were continued to be engaged as detailed below:
(i) Kadamparai 48
(ii) Erode 61
(iii) Tirunelveli, and 59
(iv) Kundah 127 295
Accordingly, those who were serving were appointed as Helpers with effect from 05.08.2005 and the Petitioner was one of them.
12. The case of the Petitioner is that as his name found place in the list of contract labourers identified as on 05.01.1998 and when most of them were appointed on 29.01.2001 in the first list, he should have been Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 appointed from 29.01.2001. Therefore, he should be given the benefit of service for the period from 29.1.2001 to 5.8.2005. The claim of the Petitioner is based on an erroneous assumption that the contract labourers in four Hydro Thermal Circles were appointed on the basis that they had worked for 480 days as on 05.01.1998. It is not so. None of the 849 contract labourers had worked for 480 days during the period 06.01.1996 to 05.1.1998. Therefore, they did not qualify for absorption in terms of BP 22 dated 14.05.1999. In the circumstances, as per BP 3 dated 29.01.2001, the first list of 500 senior most contract labourers were to be appointed. The first list of 500 contract labourers were appointed from 29.01.2001 based on seniority and the remaining contract labourers including the Petitioner were appointed by pursuant to BP 14 dated 05.08.2005. Therefore, his claim that he should have been considered for appointment as from 29.01.2001 is misconceived.
13. The Petitioner, Thiru K.Chandran had joined as contract labourer in this Circle on 04.11.1996 and was identified on 05.01.1998, he had completed only 415 days of service as on 05.01.1998. The first list of absorption with effect from 29.01.2001 was made in pursuance of orders Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 issued in [Per] B.P.(F.B) No.3 Adm Br dated 29.01.2001 in Kundah Generation Circle as per the guidelines issued therein and as per BP [FB] No.22 (SB) dated 14.05.1999. Only such of those contract labourers, who had completed 480 days of service as on 05.01.1998 and who had satisfied the other conditions stipulated in the orders alone were included in the first list for absorption with effect from 29.01.2001.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court dated 13.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.37763 of 2003, wherein the similar issue of permanent absorption in Hydro Generation Projects were considered. This Court dismissed the writ petition regarding the claim of the petitioners therein to place them above in the list and grant retrospective permanent absorption.
15. The respondents also had submitted the attendance sheets and the wages details particular register of the petitioner from 01.05.1999 to 31.12.2000. As per the said register, it is stated that the petitioner had served 479 days. The counter affidavit also reveals that the Wages Register maintained by the respondent shows that the writ petitioners served 479 Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 days.
16. Permanent absorptions are granted to these contract labourers by way of concession. Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Board, on considering the long services of the contract labourers had taken a decision to absorb the contract labourers in a phased manner. As per the terms and conditions stipulated, the contract labourers must have completed 480 days of service in between 01.05.1999 and 31.12.2000. The list of eligible persons are prepared. The List of eligible persons cannot be construed as seniority list. Seniority list of contract labourers was not prepared by the respondent / Board. The list of eligible contract labourers were prepared for permanent absorption. The contract labourers, who had fulfilled the eligibility conditions, were included in the list for permanent absorption. Admittedly, the name of the writ petitioner was included in the second list dated 09.02.2005 as he had completed 479 days of service as per the Wages Register maintained by the respondents/Board. Regarding the said fact, which is disputed, High Court cannot conduct a Roving enquiry. As per the Wages paid particulars provided by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the petitioner had Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 served about 479 days. Even then, his name was included in the second list for permanent absorption on 09.02.2005. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was considered as eligible for permanent absorption, despite the fact that the respondent's Wage Register, the petitioner completed 479 days. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner was treated as eligible contract labourer for grant of permanent absorption and consequently, he was permanently absorbed in the year 2005.
17. Permanent absorption of the contract labourers is a concession extended by the Board. Despite the fact that the petitioner had served about 479 days, he was considered for permanent absorption based on his representation along with the other contract labourers, who were included in the second list dated 09.02.2005.
18. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the deliberations made by the respondents in the matter of publishing the eligible list of contract labourers for grant of permanent absorption.
19. The contention of the petitioner that if at all he was included in Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 the first list dated 02.05.2001, he will be getting further service benefits is hypothetical and no employee can presume such eligibility or inclusion. The list of eligible candidates were prepared on 02.05.2001 and 09.02.2005 and at the first instance, the authorities found that the petitioner has not completed 480 days of contract service and therefore, his name was omitted and in the second list, the petitioner was considered, despite the fact that he served about 479 days and he was granted the benefit of permanent absorption in the year 2005.
20. Thus, this Court do not find any perversity in respect of the permanent absorption conferred on the writ petitioner pursuant to the policy decision of the Board taken in B.P.(FB) No.22 dated 14.05.1999. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and consequently, stands dismissed. No costs.
26.09.2022 Jeni/kak Index : Yes Speaking order Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 To
1.The Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, NPKRR Maaligai, 8th Floor, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Generation Circle / Kundah, Kundah Bridge Post, The Nilgiris – 643 219.
Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7231 of 2016 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Kak W.P.No.7231 of 2016 26.09.2022 Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis