Madras High Court
T.Sampathkumar vs Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON :14.08.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
W.P(MD).No.19053 of 2016:
T.Sampathkumar .....Petitioner
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai -600 002
2.The Chief Engineer -Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Chief Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin 628 004
4.The Superintending Engineer (P&A),
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station
Tuticorin 628 004 ....Respondents
W.P(MD).No.19054 of 2016:
A.Krishnamoorthy .....Petitioner
Vs
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
1.Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai -600 002
2.The Chief Engineer -Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Chief Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin 628 004
4.The Superintending Engineer (P&A),
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station
Tuticorin 628 004 ....Respondents
W.P(MD).No.19056 of 2016:
M.Thilagam .....Petitioner
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu General & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai -600 002
2.The Chief Engineer -Personnel
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
3.The Chief Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, Tuticorin 628 004
4.The Superintending Engineer (P&A),
Tuticorin Thermal Power Station
Tuticorin 628 004 ....Respondents
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
Prayer in WP(MD).No.19053 of 2016: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions
and in particular issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the action
of the respondents in not counting the petitioner's entire service from
11.08.1999, the date on which he completed 480 days of service for the
purpose of concomitant service benefits of promotion, backwages, pension as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently issue a direction to the
respondents to count the petitioner's service in the respondent corporation
from the date of completion of 480 days of service ie. with effect from
11.08.1999 for the purpose of granting him service benefits namely
continuity of service, promotion, pension etc., and further directing the
respondents to pay back wages to him from 11.08.1999 to 13.05.2013 and to
grant all other attendant service benefits.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.19054 of 2016: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions
and in particular issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the action
of the respondents in not counting the petitioner's entire service from
26.05.1999, the date on which he completed 480 days of service for the
purpose of concomitant service benefits of promotion, backwages, pension as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently issue a direction to the
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
respondents to count the petitioner's service in the respondent corporation
from the date of completion of 480 days of service ie. with effect from
26.05.1999 for the purpose of granting him service benefits namely
continuity of service, promotion, pension etc., and further directing the
respondents to pay back wages to him from 26.05.1999 to 09.05.2013 and to
grant all other attendant service benefits.
Prayer in WP(MD).No.19056 of 2016: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions
and in particular issue a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the action
of the respondents in not counting the petitioner's entire service from
28.07.1999, the date on which he completed 480 days of service for the
purpose of concomitant service benefits of promotion, backwages, pension as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently issue a direction to the
respondents to count the petitioner's service in the respondent corporation
from the date of completion of 480 days of service ie. with effect from
28.07.1999 for the purpose of granting the petitioner's service benefits
namely continuity of service, promotion, pension etc., and further directing
the respondents to pay back wages to him from 28.07.1999 to 09.05.2013
and to grant all other attendant service benefits.
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
(In all the writ petitions)
For Petitioners : Mr.Ajoy Khose
For Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed seeking a declaration to declare
the actions of the respondents in not counting the service from 11.08.1999,
the date on which the petitioners had completed 480 days of service for the
purposes of service benefits as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to
issue a direction to the respondents to count the services of the petitioners in
the respondent corporation from the date of completion of 480 days ie. with
effect from 11.08.1999 for the purposes of granting service benefits namely
continuity of service, promotion, pension etc., and for payment of backwages.
(A).Factual Background:
2.The petitioners herein were working as Contract Labourers in
Tuticorin Thermal Power Corporation. The respondent board has issued
proceedings on 30.04.1999 to regularise the services of all the contract
labourers who had completed 480 days as on 30.04.1999. Since the
petitioners herein have not completed 480 days of services on the said cut off
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
date, their services were not regularised. All the petitioners were terminated
from service on 27.10.1999. Though the petitioners have not completed 480
days as on 30.04.1999, they have put in more than 480 days of service within
24 calender months on the date of their termination.
3.The petitioners along with others had approached the authority under
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981 seeking conferment of permanent status. The said
application was dismissed by the authority on the ground that the petitioners
were not in service when they had filed an application seeking permanent
status. The petitioners had filed W.P(MD).No.281 of 2012 challenging the
order of Inspector of Labour.
4.In the meantime, similarly placed workmen had preferred
W.P(MD).No.13031 of 2011 challenging the order of the Inspector of Labour
rejecting their request for permanent status on the ground that they were not
in service on the date of their application. The said writ petition was
dismissed on 16.11.2011. They had preferred W.A(MD).No.1491 of 2011.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners in WP(MD).No.281 of 2012 was
taken along with W.A(MD).No.1491 of 2011 and a common order came to be
passed. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, relying upon a decision of
another Division Bench in W.A.No.311 of 2004 dated 17.11.2008, allowed
the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. The operative portion in Paragraph
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
Nos. 23 and 24 is extracted as follows:
“23.In view of the above said factors, we are of the
considered view that there is no justification for denying the
similar benefits to a similarly placed person, namely, the appellant
herein, by conferring the permanent status as he had admittedly
completed 480 days of service in the Board/Corporation. It is also
brought to the notice of this Court that consequent to the decision
rendered by the Division Bench, the decision cited supra, through
out the respondents herein have also implemented the said order.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the writ
Court dated 16.11.2011 made in WP(MD).No.13031 of 2011 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the order of the fourth respondent
dated 14.09.2011, is also hereby set aside and the respondents 1 to
3 herein are directed to absorb the appellant as Helper. The fact
remains that in WP(MD).No.281 of 2012, the petitioners are
numbering 14, they are also similarly placed persons, namely
contract labouers as that of the appellant in this writ appeal
(WA(MD).No.1491 of 2011) and the respondents 4 to 10 in WA.No.
311 of 2004 and further the fourth respondent passed a similar
identical impugned order dated 14.09.2011 in respect of the
petitioners in this writ petition.
24.In view of the reasons assigned in the above writ appeal
which are applicable to the case of the petitioners herein, we are
constrained to allow the writ petition and accordingly, the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.E/2339/2011 dated 14.09.2011 is set
aside. Consequently, respondents 1 to 3 are directed to absorb the
writ petitions as Helpers with permanent status. It is made clear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
that in both the matters, namely, the writ appeal and the writ
petition the above said exercise of absorbing the appellants in the
writ appeal and the petitioners in the writ petition should be
completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order judgment. No costs.”
5.In compliance with the order of the Division Bench cited supra, the
respondents issued proceedings on 03.05.2013 conferring permanent status
upon the petitioners as Field Assistant with effect from the date of joining
duty. It is the grievance of the writ petitioners that they should have been
conferred with permanent status from the date of completion of 480 days.
However, by way of proceedings dated 03.05.2013, their services were
regularized only with effect from 03.05.2013. Hence, the present writ
petitions have been for the prayer cited supra.
(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:
6.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the contract
labourers who were absorbed pursuant to the order of the writ Court, had
filed WP(MD).No.35057 of 2013 seeking to enforce the order of the
authority. This Court by an order dated 11.03.2014 had directed the authority
to confer benefits from the date of completion of 480 days. He further
submitted that this order was put to challenge by the respondents in W.A.No.
912 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on
13.07.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners had also relied upon a
decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.311 of
2004(The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others
Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) dated 17.11.2008 wherein this
Court had taken into consideration the termination of the employees before
approaching the authority under Conferment of Permanent Status Act and had
held that the Board would not have any jurisdiction to fix a cut off date for
calculating the total number of days to be put in by a contract labourer to
claim the benefits. The prayer for a declaration that the action of the
respondents in not counting the petitioners' service from the date of
completion of 480 days is bad in the eye of law and for conferment of
consequential benefits.
8.On instruction, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners herein undertakes to forego the backwages for the period of
non-employment.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioners cannot rely upon the other judgments of this Court. In other cases,
the authority under Conferment of Permanent Status Act, has allowed the
petition and the same was confirmed by the High Court. However, in the
present case, the authority under the said Act had rejected the application
filed by the petitioners. Only by way of Division Bench order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
06.11.2012, for the first time, the right of permanent status was conferred
upon the petitioners. Therefore, the judgement relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10.The learned counsel for the respondents had further submitted that
the Board has issued proceedings fixing a cut off of date namely 30.04.1999
for conferring status upon them who had completed 480 days on the said
date. The petitioners herein have admittedly not completed 480 days on the
said date. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim that they are
similarly placed employees and claim permanent status from the date of
completion of 480 days. The learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the petitioners were dismissed from service on 27.10.1999.
They have not challenged the said order of dismissal. In such circumstances,
the permanent status would be granted only from the date of order. The
permanent status was rightly conferred upon the petitioners from 03.05.2013.
Without challenging the said order by way of declaration, the petitioners
cannot seek retrospective permanent status from the date on which they have
completed 480 days of service in 24 months.
11.The learned counsel for the respondents had further relied upon a
decision of this Court in W.P.No.11417 of 2007 (M.Subramanian Vs. The
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and others) dated
09.04.2007 wherein the writ petition seeking backwages for the period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
non-employment was dismissed. According to him, the writ appeal preferred
by the employee in W.A.No.856 of 2007 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble
First Bench on 02.07.2007. He also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 1003
(Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Vs.
Inspector of Labour and others) to the effect that the consequences of
Conferment of Permanent Status would be only for the period of employment
and if any of the workman is discontinued and not in service, he would be
entitled to the benefit only for a period of service and not beyond them. He
also relied upon another Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.2252 of 2021
batch cases dated 22.02.2022 wherein a similar view has been expressed. He
also relied upon another Division Bench judgement of our High Court in
W.A.No.1544 of 2022(R.Palani Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity General and Distribution Corporation
Ltd., and others) dated 15.07.2022 expressing similar view. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12.Heard both sides and perused the material records.
(C) Discussion:
13.The primary grievance of the writ petitioners is that though they
were conferred with permanent status from 03.05.2013, they have not been
granted the said benefit from the date on which they have completed 480 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
of service in 24 months. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have
completed 480 days of services before their date of termination on
27.10.1999. Their applications before the authority under Conferment of
Permanent Status Act were rejected primarily on the ground that they were
not in service on the date of filing of the applications.
14.In the cases of similarly placed persons (who were terminated on
the same date namely 27.10.1999), this Court has granted Conferment of
Permanent Status in W.A.(MD).No.1491 of 2011 dated 06.11.2012. Along
with the writ appeal, the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein was also
taken into consideration and the same was also allowed. In compliance with
the said order, the respondents have issued proceedings on 03.05.2013
granting regularisation from the said date.
15.The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment
reported in (2012) 6 Mad LJ 480 (R.Lakshmi Vs. The Chief Engineer
(Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai and another) in
Paragraph No.36 has held as follows:
“36.......Viewed in that perspective, we hold that a
workman, who had completed 480 days of continuous service in
a period of 24 calender months, would become automatically a
permanent employee under the employer, even if, an employer
had not conferred him with the permanent status or even if, no
direction was issued by the competent authority in this regard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
under the Act, 1981 or the Rules framed thereunder.
Accordingly, we answer the Reference.”
16.One B.Sekar and others have approached the Deputy Inspector of
Factories, Tirunelveli seeking permanent status and an order was passed by
the said authority on 02.01.2001 directing conferment of permanent status on
completion of 480 days. However, they were issued with permanent status
order only from 24.02.2010. This order was put to challenge by the said
Sekar and three others in W.P.Nos.10054 to 10057 of 2011. The writ Court
was pleased to allow the writ petitions on 12.06.2014. Paragraph Nos.10 and
11 of the said order are extracted as follows:
“10. Above all, this Court is also aware of the question as
to, how the petitioners who had not worked from 02.01.2001 till
they are absorbed on 24.02.2010 to be paid with the backwages
and continuity of service. Looking into the causes for their non-
employment and continuity of service, the respondents only
should be thankful for non-absorption of the petitioners, inspite
of several orders passed by the Authority under the Act and this
Court, therefore, continuity of service from 02.01.2001 cannot be
denied. Secondly, while turning to the question of backwages, the
respondent department is the only prime reason for not
implementing the order of this Court dated 02.01.2001, for
which the petitioners cannot be denied with the backwages.
However, taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the
case, this Court hereby directs the respondents to grant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
continuity of service to the petitioners and other benefits, as per
the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, on 17.11.2008 in W.A.
No.311 of 2004, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Inspite of the specific and categorical direction given
by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.311/2004 dated
17.11.2008 to implement the order dated 02.01.2001, the
impugned order has been passed appointing the petitioners only
from 24.02.2010 instead of 02.01.2001, flouting the order of the
Division Bench, which compelled the petitioners to approach
this court. This Court is also of the view that the proceedings
initiated in W.P. No.9729 of 2002 and W.A. No.311 of 2004
against the order passed by the authority under the Act have
been the reason for delay, hence the said period shall be treated
as a period on duty for all purposes. Therefore, this Court
isinclined to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to
all the petitioners and the amount should be recovered only from
the salary of the officer who have passed the order.”
17.In compliance with the orders passed by the writ Court, the
respondents have issued proceedings on 28.06.2016 granting conferment of
permanent status from the date of completion of 480 days. It is not in dispute
that the petitioners are similarly placed persons. There cannot be any
discrimination among those who were terminated enmasse on 27.10.1999
after completion of 480 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
(D). Conclusion:
18.Considering the fact that the petitioners have agreed to forego the
backwages, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
a)The respondents are directed to confer permanent status
upon the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of 480
days.
b)The said services shall be calculated for all the purposes,
except for payment of backwages.
c)The benefits shall be conferred upon the petitioners within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
19.In fine, the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent as stated
above. No costs.
25.08.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
To
The Section Officer
V.R.Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 & 19056 of 2016
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.19053, 19054 &
19056 of 2016
25.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 04:07:17 pm )
