Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
T. Sivaraman - Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu and Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 25469 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2022
Pension - Absorption of Contract Labourer - - [Pension Rules, Justice Khalid Commission report, Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the process of absorption of contract labourers based on the Justice Khalid Commission report and the pension rules. It highlighted the criteria for permanent absorption, the verification of documents, and the genuinity of services rendered as contract labourers. The court emphasized that the period of services as a contract labourer cannot be counted for calculating qualifying services for grant of pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permanent absorption on par with his junior and counting half of the contract services for pensionary benefits. The rejection of the petitioner's claim for absorption and the consideration of contract services for pensionary benefits were under challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim for retrospective permanent absorption and counting of contract services for pensionary benefits was untenable. It emphasized that the period of services as a contract labourer cannot be counted for calculating qualifying services for grant of pension.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to permanent absorption on par with his junior and the consideration of contract services for pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period of services as a contract labourer cannot be counted for calculating qualifying services for grant of pension. It emphasized that the list prepared for absorption cannot be construed as a seniority list and that the absorption was based on the verification of documents and ascertaining the genuinity of the contract labourers' services.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the rejection of pension passed by the 2nd respondent vide letter No.064447/411/G.58/G.581/2015-2 dated 11.04.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner on par with his junior C. Thomas w.e.f 29.04.1992, as Helper with all consequential benefits and disburse the terminal and pension benefits on account of retirement by calculating the qualified service from 25.04.1992 to 30.11.2005, and count the half of service of the petitioner from 1983 to 28.04.1992 as per (FB) TANGEDCO proceedings No.31 dated 08.09.2011.)
1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for his absorption on par with his junior one Mr.C.Thomas with effect from 29.04.1992 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner further seeks the relief to count half of the contract services of the writ petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
3. The petitioner was initially joined as Contract Labourer in the year 1983. His services were utilised in the office of Assistant Engineer. (Construction) at Koteripattu Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
4. Pursuant to the Khalid Commission report, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under took the process of absorption of these contract labourers in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. The huge process of permanent absorption, wherein progress under the monitoring of the Honourable Supreme Court of India during the relevant point of time i.e., 1991 to 1999. Finally, the final order was passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition No.357 of 1993 dated 15.02.1999, which reads as under:
“In view of the present order the earlier order passed by this Court on 19th January 1995 stating that the Board shall not made any appointment in future till all the employees are absorbed will not survive any further and will stand vacated.”
5. Pursuant to the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court and based on the Khalid Commission report, the petitioner was also absorbed as permanent employee in the Board with effect from 28.02.1998.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that along with the all other contract labours, the petitioner also participated in the process of interview in the year 1991. His junior one Mr.C.Thomas was absorbed in the year 1992. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered for permanent absorption during the year 1992. However, he was absorbed only in the year 1998 after a lapse of six years. Thus, the petitioner states that he is entitled for permanent absorption on par with his junior one Mr.C.Thomas from the date on which he was permanently absorbed i.e. on 29.04.1992.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is not seeking any monetary benefits. However, the absorption is to be granted from the date on which his junior Mr.C.Thomas was absorbed on 29.04.1992 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. That apart, half of the contract services are also to be taken into consideration for calculating the qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits.
8. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5176 of 2015 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 16.12.2015, setting aside the order of rejection and directing the respondents to take note of the facts as pleaded by the petitioner and examine the case and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 11.04.2016 was issued.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as contract labourer on daily wage basis and therefore, the terms and conditions attached for contract labourers were agreed and lab
The period of services as a contract labourer cannot be counted for calculating qualifying services for grant of pension.
Absorption of contract labourers must follow established seniority based on service duration, and discrepancies in records can justify delays in absorption; insufficient qualifying service precludes ....
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 th....
Appointment on the basis of absorption is impermissible and acquittal in a criminal case does not confer the right to claim absorption with retrospective effect.
Absorption of contract labour on an 'as-is-where-is' basis excludes claims for prior service benefits; delay and laches bar belated attempts to assert such claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
