Madras High Court
R.Marudhan vs The Chairman on 8 June, 2023
W.P.No.124 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.124 of 2017
&
W.M.P.No.123 of 2017
R.Marudhan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman
TANGEDCO
Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002
2.The Superintending Engineer
Administration and Procurement
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Chennai-600 057 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
02.11.2016 in letter No.182/Me.Pa.Po/Ko(Ma)Nir/Ni.U.2/Ko.Va.2016 to
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the
pension benefits to the petitioner taking into account of the entire period of
service with the respondents including the period of service as helper from
01.08.1986 to 30.04.1999 along with the regular service with the respondent
department.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.Haroon
for
M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co for R1 and 2
ORDER
The Writ Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a
Writ of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd
respondent in letter No.182/Me.Pa.Po/Ko(Ma)Nir/Ni.U.2/Ko.Va.2016 dated
02.11.2016 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
sanction the pension benefits to the petitioner taking into account his entire
period of service with the respondents including the period of service as
helper from 01.08.1986 to 30.04.1999 along with the regular service with the
respondent department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
2. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract
worker at Ennore Thermal Power Station in the year 1980. Thereafter, he was
appointed as a contract worker in the very same post through INDCOSERVE
SOCIETY again as contract labour from 01.08.1986 to 30.04.1999. During
the course of employment the Tamilnadu Electricity Board deducted pension
and provident fund amongst from his salary and the petitioner was also
assigned provident fund account number. The petitioner after long legal battle
was absorbed into regular service on 30.10.1999. Thereafter, he worked as
probationary employee for a period of nine months and his service was
regularized on 14.02.2001 and from that date he was continuing in service till
2021 when he attained the age of superannuation.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to pensionary
benefits based on G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance(Pension Department) dated
25.08.2009 and since the same has not been given, he made a representation
to the 2nd respondent on 11.03.2016 requesting him to take into account 50%
of the service period rendered as contract labour for the period 1986 to 1999
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits.
4. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has rejected the request of
the Writ Petitioner and the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court stating
that the petitioner cannot be treated as fresh appointee as he initially served as
a contract labourer and thereafter his services were regularised way back in
2001.
5. Though no counter affidavit has been filed, counsel for the
respondents has made his submissions.
6. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.Haroon for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2.
7. This Court has taken into account the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
the petitioner that whether he is a contract labourer or not, he should be
entitled to benefits of G.O.Ms.No.408 Finance(Pension Department) dated
25.08.2009. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
2014 2 CTC 777, Union of India, rep by the Secretary, Atomic Energy
Commission, Ministry of Atomic Energy, Trombay and another Vs.
K.Punniyakoti and others. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court
held that right of Government servants to receive pension is a statutory right
conferred under the pension rules applicable from the date when the
Government servant was appointed either on daily
wage/temporary/permanent basis and that permanent absorption having been
ordered considering the temporary service rendered earlier cannot be treated
as fresh appointment. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Division Bench,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when this Court has not
made any difference between daily wage/temporary labou,r his case of
contract labour cannot be exempted or treated differently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on latest Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015. The Division
Bench of this Court in the said judgment has specifically dealt with labour on
contract basis and finally found that there is no reason to extend
G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department dated 25.08.2009 to contract
labour unless the Government or the Board specifically takes a conscious
decision to extend the benefit to them. This decision specifically deals with
the issue of person appointed on contract basis that is the case on hand as
well. Therefore, this court has no difficulty in applying the ratio laid by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.785 of 2015 to the facts of the
present case. There is no quarrel that the petitioner wants his period of service
entered on contract basis to be taken into consideration. Now that the issue is
no longer res-integra in view of the ratio laid down in W.A.(MD) No.785 of
2015 which has also been subsequently followed by another learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10884 of 2015, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that the Writ Petitioner's request cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
9. Writ Petition fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.06.2023.
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
kpr
To
1.The Chairman
TANGEDCO
Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002
2.The Superintending Engineer
Administration and Procurement
Ennore Thermal Power Station
Chennai-600 057
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.124 of 2017
P.B.BALAJI, J.,
kpr
W.P.No.124 of 2017
&
W.M.P.No.123 of 2017
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
