Madras High Court
K.Chandran (Sr.Driver) vs The Chief Engineer / Personnel on 26 September, 2022
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
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
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
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:
(iii) Tirunelveli, and 221
(iv) Kundah 244 849
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
11. The Petitioner was working in Power House II, Kundah. Out of
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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 had 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
Note: Registry is directed to issue order copy on 27.09.2022.
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
