Case Note & Summary
The appellant, T. Sivaraman, filed a Writ Appeal against the order dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.No.25469 of 2016, wherein his claim for absorption on par with one C.Thomas w.e.f. 29.04.1992 and counting half of his service from 1983 to 28.04.1992 was rejected. The appellant claimed to have been engaged as a contract labourer from 1983 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Pursuant to the Justice Khalid Committee Report, the Board initiated absorption of contract labourers. The appellant alleged that he was senior to C.Thomas based on a call letter for interview in 1991, where he was at Serial No.8 and C.Thomas at Serial No.20. However, C.Thomas was absorbed in 1992, while the appellant's absorption was delayed due to verification of date of birth and was ultimately absorbed only in 1998. The appellant sought retrospective regularization from 1992 and half-service counting under B.P.No.31 dated 08.09.2011. The learned single Judge held that seniority does not arise among contract labourers as their initial appointments were not made according to rules and they were engaged through private contractors. The absorption process was a massive exercise based on the Justice Khalid Commission report. The appellant's delay in absorption due to verification did not entitle him to retrospective regularization. The Division Bench upheld the single Judge's order, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Absorption of Contract Labourers - Seniority - The issue of seniority does not arise in the matter of consideration for absorption of contract labourers, as their initial appointment was not made in accordance with rules and services were engaged through private contractors. (Paras 4-5) B) Service Law - Absorption - Retrospective Regularization - Delay in absorption due to verification of details does not entitle a contract labourer to claim retrospective regularization from an earlier date when another labourer was absorbed. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Half-Service Counting - B.P.No.31 dated 08.09.2011 - The claim to count half of the service from 1983 to 28.04.1992 was rejected as no details of service from 1983 were provided. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to absorption from 29.04.1992 on par with C.Thomas and to count half of his service from 1983 to 28.04.1992.
Final Decision
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 19.09.2022 in W.P.No.25469 of 2016 is upheld.
Law Points
- Contract labour absorption
- seniority among contract labourers
- retrospective regularization
- half-service counting
- B.P.No.31 dated 08.09.2011
