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 pension eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

[Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.]

This Writ Appeal is preferred as against the order dated 19.09.2022 made in W.P.No.25469 of 2016, wherein the claim of the petitioner/ appellant to absorb him on par with one C.Thomas w.e.f. 29.04.1992 and also to count half of his service rendered from 1983 to 28.04.1992 came to be rejected.

2. The appellant claims to have been engaged as contract labourer from the year 1983 in the office of the Assistant Engineer (Construction) at Koteripattu Division of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Pursuant to the Justice Khalid Committee Report, the Board initiated proceedings for absorption of the contract labourers in the sanctioned posts, bringing them under the time scale of pay.

3. It is the further claim of the appellant that the contract labourers including the appellant were called for an interview in the year 1991 and in the said call letter, he was placed at Serial No.8 and one C.Thomas was placed at Serial No.20 and therefore, he is senior to him. Even though C.Thomas was absorbed in the year 1992, however, citing some verification of details about the date of birth, the regularisation and absorption process of the appellant was delayed and ultimately, he was absorbed only in the year 1998 i.e., after a lapse of 6 years. As such, he claims that his service is to be regularised w.e.f. 1992 on par with C.Thomas.

4. Further, even though no details have been provided in respect of his service from 1983, a further relief is also claimed to count half of the service from 1983 to 28.04.1992 based on B.P.No.31 dated 08.09.2011. The learned single Judge by holding that, when the initial appointment as contract labourer was not made in accordance with the rules and their services mostly were engaged through private contractors, only pursuant to the report of Justice Khalid Commission, the respondents undertook a massive exercise of verifying the records for absorption. As such, the issue of senior or junior does not arise in the matter of consideration for absorption and ultimately, when the appellant was regularised on 17.02.1998, it cannot be found fault with and he cannot claim the benefits on par with the other persons and thereby dismissed the writ petition.

5. Assailing the impugned order, the writ petitioner had preferred the above writ appeal.

6. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellant argued that when the appellant was issued with the call letter on 19.08.1991 for interview in respect of the absorption into regular service, he had appeared before the selection committee on 23.08.1991. Only citing some discrepancies noticed in the appellant’s date of birth by letter dated 12.11.1991, the same was referred for verification and after a delay of nearly 6 years, ultimately the appellant was absorbed into regular service, by order dated 17.02.1998, based on which, he joined on 28.02.1998.

7. It is his further contention that when the call letter for interview in respect of regularisation was issued, the same was only on the basis of seniority and the appellant stood senior to one C.Thomas whose services came to be absorbed in 1992 itself. As such, when once the certificate of the appellant after verification was found to be correct, he is entitled to be absorbed into service on par with his junior C.Thomas w.e.f. 1992 onwards.

8. He further contented that the appellant had put in 7 years and 9 months of regular service and falls short of 10 years of qualifying service for pension, only due to the delay of respondents in verifying the certificates and absorbing the appellant. As such the delay cannot be put against him and therefore he is entitled to be absorbed from 1992, whereby he will be qualified for grant of pension.

9. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant was engaged in contract work by the department directly and his wages were paid through petty cash book from the year 1983 to 1990 and not through the contractors. Therefore, as per Rule