Madras High Court
The Chief Engineer (Personnel) vs L.Chandran on 6 October, 2021
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 and 2082 of 2021
1. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
800 Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer,
North Chennai Thermal Power Station,
Chennai 600 120.
3. The Superintending Engineer (P&A)
North Chennai Thermal Power Station-I,
Chennai 600 120. ... Appellants in all Writ Appeals
vs.
1. L.Chandran ...Respondent in W.A.No.2072 of 2021
2. E.Subramani ...Respondent in W.A.No.2073 of 2021
3. T.M.Srinivasan ...Respondent in W.A.No.2074 of 2021
4. R.Selvaraj ...Respondent in W.A.No.2075 of 2021
5. J.Yuvaraj ...Respondent in W.A.No.2076 of 2021
6. R.Santhanam ...Respondent in W.A.No.2077 of 2021
7. S.Sekar ...Respondent in W.A.No.2079 of 2021
8. P.Dakshinamoorthy ...Respondent in W.A.No.2081 of 2021
9. G.Balu ...Respondent in W.A.No.2082 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
common order dated 30.08.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.36574 to
36580 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.1213 to 1215 of 2005.
For Appellants in all W.As. : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For Respondent in all W.As. : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
Challenging the common order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.Nos.36574 to 36580 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.1213 to 1215
of 2005, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has come up with the above Writ
Appeals.
2. Respondents in the above Writ Appeals are the Writ Petitioners.
Before the learned Single Judge, Writ Petitioners challenged the impugned
order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the 1st Respondent therein, confirming the
order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the 2 nd Respondent therein, and for a
consequential direction to the Respondents therein to absorb them as Regular
Helpers w.e.f. 27.10.1999 with all monetary and consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
3. It is seen that, by a common order dated 23.11.2009, the learned
Single Judge allowed the above Writ Petitions, based on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.6 of 2009, by directing the
Respondents therein to treat the Writ Petitioners as deemed to have been
appointed as Helpers from 27.10.1999. However, in paragraph 6 of the
order, the date of giving effect has been wrongly mentioned as 27.10.2009
instead of 27.10.1999. For better understanding, paragraph 6 of the said
order dated 23.11.2009 is extracted hereunder:
“6. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner also produced a judgment of this Court. While
allowing the Writ Petition No.7509 of 2002, filed by the
similarly placed persons, this Court directed the Petitioner
therein, deemed to have been appointed as helper under the
Board with effect from 27.10.1999. The learned Senior
Counsel also represented that the order was passed in a similar
circumstance of the case and the benefit given in Writ Petition
No.7509 of 2002 may also be extended to the Petitioner, as the
Petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as Helper
under the Board with effect from 27.10.2009.”
4. Thereafter, above Writ Petitions were listed for clarification at the
instance of the Writ Petitioners. Before the learned Single Judge, learned
counsel for the Electricity Board contended that, even though the original
order was passed in the year 2009, Writ Petitioners have approached the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
Court seeking clarification, belatedly. While so, learned counsel for the Writ
Petitioners contended that, it is only a typographical error made by the
Registry and therefore, right of the Writ Petitioners should not be infringed.
According to the learned counsel, when the deemed date of appointment in
respect of other similarly placed persons has been taken as 27.10.1999, if the
date of appointment in the case of the Writ Petitioners is taken as 27.10.2009,
then they would lose their pensionary benefits.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that, the above Writ Petitions
were allowed by this Court based on the judgment rendered in W.A.(MD)
No.6 of 2009, and that, similarly placed persons have obtained pensionary
benefits, the learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 30.08.2018 in
the above Writ Petitions, directed the Respondents therein to grant pensionary
benefits and continuity of service to the Writ Petitioners, deeming their date of
appointment as 27.10.1999. Challenging the said order of clarification passed
by the learned Single Judge, Electricity Board has come up with the above
Appeals.
6. Today, when the matter is taken for hearing, learned counsel for
the Appellants/Electricity Board, contended that, the learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
ought not to have modified the order dated 23.11.2009 passed in the above
Writ Petitions, by an order dated 30.08.2018, after a lapse of nearly nine
years, that too, based on the verbal submissions of the learned counsel for the
Writ Petitioners. He went on to contend that, when the Writ Petitioners have
acquiesced to the position that, they were entitled for appointment only in
terms of the order dated 23.11.2009, they cannot seek extension of benefits
retrospectively.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Electricity Board referred to a
First Bench decision of this Court dated 19.12.2002 rendered in
W.P.No.4149 of 2001 batch, which relate to the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the employees, who were appointed pursuant to the Award of
Mr.Justice Khalid Commission. In the said order, reference was made to the
order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as regards production of
bogus Certificates for qualification/age by the contract labourers absorbed as
Helpers. The Board held that, the punishment of removal/dismissal from
service imposed by the Superintending Engineers for production of bogus
Certificates for qualification/age by contract labourers absorbed as Helpers
shall be cancelled and in such cases, the punishment of dismissal and removal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
imposed will be modified to that of reduction of pay to the minimum of the
time scale of pay of the post held on the date of issuance of the order for a
period of three years which will operate for future increments.
8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
Appellants/Board that, the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board,
VadaChennai Anal Min Nilayam, Chennai vide individual communication
dated 19.07.2004 to the Writ Petitioners, has stated that, their request for
absorption as Helpers in the Board cannot be countenanced, as, on
verification, they were found to have produced bogus School Certificates.
Hence, according to the learned counsel, when it has been found that, the
Writ Petitioners produced bogus School Certificates, they ought not to have
been absorbed as Helpers vide proceedings dated 19.07.2011. He also
pointed out that, the employees concerned in the above Writ Appeals are not a
part of the Khalid Commission dispute.
9. Citing reference to the proceedings dated 22.04.1999 of the
Appellant/Electricity Board, learned counsel for the Appellants further stated
that, the Board decided to absorb contract labourers working in all the four
Thermal Stations as on 05.01.1998, as there will be no contract labour system
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
from 01.05.1999. As per the Board's proceedings, Contract labourers who
were on rolls on 30.04.1999 and who had completed 480 days of service in a
period of 24 calender months also would be regularized/absorbed. According
to the learned counsel, Respondents herein will not come under the said
category.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/Writ Petitioners
submitted that, all the Respondents herein have completed 480 days of
continuous service in 24 calendar months, as early as in January 1998, and
they were on the rolls on 30.04.1999. He went on to state that, the Electricity
Board has issued Identity Cards to the Respondents/Writ Petitioners and it is
incorrect on the part of the Appellant/Electricity Board to contend that, the
Respondents/Writ Petitioners are not on the rolls. He further stated that, the
Respondents/Writ Petitioners were on rolls between 01.05.1999 and
27.10.1999 and they have been disengaged from the services of the
Appellant/Board on the ground of production of bogus School Certificates.
However, when the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned Single
Judge was questioned as regards the date of regularization of the employees,
the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 30.08.2018 passed an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
clarifying that, the employees shall be regularized w.e.f. 27.09.1999 and not
from 27.09.2009, as it is only a typographical error.
11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents/Writ Petitioners, the learned Single Judge has not postponed the
date of regularization to 27.10.2009 and on the request made by the Writ
Petitioners, the learned Single Judge has clarified that, the relief has to be
extended w.e.f. 27.09.1999, as it is only a typographical error. He went to
state that, based on the order dated 23.11.2009, the Appellant/Board passed
an order dated 19.07.2011 absorbing the Writ Petitioners as Helpers in the
Board. It is his contention that, there is no bar in seeking clarification from
the learned Single Judge as regards the year of regularization, which should
be 1999 instead of 2009, as the learned Single Judge is well within the
powers to correct a typographical error at any point of time and hence, sought
for dismissal of the Writ Appeals.
12. In reply, learned counsel for the Appellant/Board submitted that,
the Respondents/Writ Petitioners were not on the rolls for a period of two
years between 1999 and 2009 and reiterated that, the Writ Petitioners are not
among the employees concerned under the Khalid Commission. When the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
employees have produced bogus School Certificates to the employer, which is
found to be fake at a later point of time, they will not be entitled to any
benefit. Further, taking note of the original order dated 23.11.2009 passed by
the learned Single Judge and the proceedings dated 19.07.2011 granting relief
to the Writ Petitioners on par with other similarly placed employees, the
concession given to the Respondents/Writ Petitioners cannot be demanded as
a matter of right.
13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
14. It is not in dispute that, Respondents/Writ Petitioners were
employed as contract labourers in the Appellant/Electricity Board. As and
when it came to light that, the School Certificates produced by them were
fake, their services have been disengaged. Though, it has been contended by
the Appellants/Electricity Board that, Respondents/Writ Petitioners did not
complete 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24 calender months
and they were not on rolls after 01.05.1999, this Court is not inclined to go
into the said aspect, as, pursuant to the original order dated 23.11.2009
passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions, proceedings dated 19.07.2011 have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
been issued by the Appellant/Electricity Board, absorbing the Respondents
herein in service.
15. Knowing well that, there is a typographical error in the original
order dated 23.11.2009, it is not correct on the part of the Writ Petitioners to
knock at the doors of this Court after a decade, seeking clarification on the
same. However, the benefit of the retrospective date i.e. 27.10.1999 has to
be given to the Respondents/Writ Petitioners, taking note of the fact that,
there is a typographical error in the original order dated 23.11.2009 passed in
the above Writ Petitions. In the original order dated 23.11.2009, the learned
Single Judge has nowhere observed that, Writ Petitioners have sought the
relief only from 27.10.1999 and it has been postponed to 27.10.2009. Hence,
it is vivid that, the date mentioned in paragraph 6 of the order as '27.10.2009'
is only a typographical error.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellants/Electricity Board that, typographical error cannot be corrected
after a distant point of time, cannot be accepted. The Court is here to render
justice and when there is a typographical error, moreso pertaining to date, the
Court is empowered to correct the same, as powers of this Court are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
curtailed and the learned Single Judge has not become functus officio.
17. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel on either
side. However, for the delay in seeking clarification, moreso during the
pandemic situation, monetary benefits due to the Respondents/Writ
Petitioners need to be curtailed.
18. Admittedly, Respondents/Writ Petitioners are in employment as
per the Board's proceedings in B.P.Nos.16 and 17, dated 28.04.1999. While
the entire period of service rendered by the Respondents/Writ Petitioners from
27.10.1999 will have to be taken into account for the purpose of continuity of
service and eligibility of pension, as they were not in employment during the
period of 12 years from 1999 to 2011, the said period has to be ignored by
the Appellants/Electricity Board while arriving at the calculation for extending
terminal benefits alone. However, for the purpose of granting gratuity, the
said period will have to be taken into account, as if, they have rendered
sufficient service.
19. Except for the above modification, we make it clear that, no
other monetary benefits will be extended to the Respondents/Writ
Petitioners between 1999 and 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
20. Since it is represented that, two employees viz. R.Thanikachalam
and P.Dakshinamoorthy (Respondent in W.A.No.2081 of 2021) died,
Appellants/Electricity Board is expected to settle the terminal benefits due to
them, to their legal heirs, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
21. Taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as
orders have been passed in favour of the Appellant/Electricity Board, this
order cannot be treated as a precedent.
22. In fine, above Writ Appeals are disposed of with the above
direction and observation. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.13116,
13117, 13119, 13126, 13134, 13147, 13156, 13160, 13165 of 2021 are
closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [A.A.N.,J.]
06.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(vm/aeb)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077,
2079, 2081 & 2082 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
(aeb)
Common Judgment in
Writ Appeal Nos.2072, 2073, 2074, 2075,
2076, 2077, 2079, 2081 and 2082 of 2021
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
