Disposed

Nagaraj. K v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Madras HC19 Sept 2016WP/15802/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for appointment orders as Mazdoor Grade-II, the Court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations along with the order copy to the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to submit fresh representations to the first respondent; directed first respondent to consider them and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

Nagaraj. K Vs The Chief Engineer/Personnel — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.09.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

W.P.No.15802 of 2016

1.Nagaraj.K,

2.Senthilmurugan.R,

3.Ramachandran.M,

4.Sudalailingam.S, ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation, Tuticorin. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue necessary appointment orders by appointing the petitioner as Mazdoor Grade-II as per the letter of the 2^nd respondent in Letter No.028945/548/Ni.Pi.2/Vu.5/Ko.O.Tho/2012 dated 30.10.2012.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/s.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue necessary appointment orders by appointing the petitioners as Mazdoor Grade-II as per the letter of the second respondent in Letter No.028945/548/Ni.Pi.2/Vu.5/Ko.O.Tho/2012 dated 30.10.2012.

¶16

The petitioners are working as Contract Labourers under the respondent Board as detailed below:

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Name	DOB	Qualification	Date of Entry
Nagaraj.K.	01.05.1977	X	01.03.1998
Senthilmurugan.R.	05.03.1979	XII	01.03.1998
Ramachandran.M.	05.06.1980	X	05.04.1998
Sudalailingam.S.	14.12.1973	VIII	29.05.1998

¶19

As per the award passed by Justice Khalid Commission dated 11.02.1991, the respondent Board had decided to absorb contract labourers as regular employee of the Board. On the basis of the report of the Justice Khalid Commission and Section 12(3) settlement of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 10.08.2007, the respondent Board had issued an order in Per(B.P).(FB)No.44 dated 06.09.2007 and in para 8 of the proceedings it is stated as follows:

¶20

“8) After careful and detailed examination of the above proposal the Board has decided that about 21,600 Contract Labourers, who have been paid exgratia for the year 2005-2006 may be absorbed into Board's service in a phased manner as provided in the 12(3) settlement dated 10.08.2007.”

¶21

Following the above said Board proceedings, the first respondent asked for the list of contract labourers to be identified by the second respondent and send a list of bonafide contract labourers and the second respondent sent the list of 252 contract labourers, out of which 251 contract labourers are declared as bonafide contract labourers by the Committee formed by the Board. The petitioners are all declared as bonafide contract labourers by the Committee formed by the Board and their row number is 247 to 250 and the serial number in 12160, 12165, 8802 and 8787 respectively.

¶22

The petitioner would state that the second respondent was also informed by the first respondent in Memo No.003907/G.58/G.82/2008 dated 23.01.2008 that 100 labour contractors in the list of 251 contract labourers from S.No.1 to 100 may be appointed as temporary casual labourers on daily wage of Rs.70/- for a period of one year and the remaining contract labourers shall be engaged directly on need basis on the daily wage of Rs.70 per day. It was also informed in the above memo by the first respondent to ensure that all the contract labourers covered in the list have been paid exgratia for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and engaged regularly on need basis and the petitioners were also paid exgratia for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and thus they fulfill all the requirements to be regularized as regular employee of the respondent Board. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that they were not issued with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment order, despite their names were included by the

¶23

concerned Committee and hence, they came forward with this writ petition.

¶24

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would be suffice to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 26.09.2014 and 07.04.2016.

¶25

This Court, without going into the merits of the petitioners representations, directs the petitioners to submit a fresh copy of their representations dated 26.09.2014 and 07.04.2016 along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the first respondent, who on receipt of the same, shall consider and dispose of the same on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶26

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jvm
To
1. The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation,
Tuticorin.
+1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.53027

¶27

W.P.No.15802 of 2016 NR(CO) CA(22/09/2016)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Nagaraj. K v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj. K v. The Chief Engineer/Personnel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Murali Vs State by

A.Sheik Abdul Khader, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Sangeetha @ Anbe Sangeetha Vs S.Sakthivel

R.Seetha Vs The State of Tamilnadu

D.Nandhagopal, Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Sivakumar Vs The Secretary to the