Permanent absorption of contract labourers is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The eligibility for permanent absorption is determined based on specific criteria outlined in the relevant provisions, and the decision to include a contract labourer in the list for permanent absorption is at the discretion of the respondent/Board.

JUDGMENT

(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.)

1. 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 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 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 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 w