IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.19888 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Velmurugan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 012 2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 012 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Villupuram EDC Villupuram ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein and as stated in Para 1 of this order. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundarajan For Respondents : Mr.G.Vasudevan ORDER The petitioner-S.Velmurugan has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent dated 02.07.2008 made in Lr.No.016198/817/Adm.II/A.2/F.CIR/2008, dated 02.07.2008, to quash the said proceedings and consequently direct the respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner as Mazdhoor in the Electricity Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner entered into the services of the Electricity Board at the Tindivanam circle as a contract labour in the year 1991 and since then, he has been working so without any break, on daily wage basis. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the respondents herein, decided to regulate the Contract Labours working continuously in the Board, by considering the case of those persons who were engaged prior to 06.01.1998. On that basis, a list was prepared by the respondents. In view of the fact that the petitioner joined as Contract Labour in the Electricity Board in the year 1991 and he has been continuously working, his name came to be included in the list of Mazdoors at serial No.167 as per Board's proceedings No. Per(SF)(FB) No.43, dated 06.09.2007, and the time scale of pay was also fixed. But unfortunately, though the name of the petitioner was included, no appointment order was issued to him. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to issue him an appointment order as Mazdoor in the respondents' Board. Again no action was taken. Unfortunately, the petitioner suffered a criminal case in the year 2006, which also came to be dismissed in favour of the petitioner. After the criminal case was over, the petitioner made yet another representation to consider his appointment as Mazdoor. The third respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 02.07.2008, informed the petitioner that he was not considered for absorption in Boards' service on the ground that he has not fulfilled one of the conditions viz., he has failed to receive the ex-gratia amount. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings, dated 02.07.2008, is not legally sustainable for the reason that the petitioner's name was admittedly included by the respondent Board in the list at serial No.167 vide proceeding No.Per(SF)(FB) No.43, dated 06.09.2007, which goes to show that, till 2007, the name of the petitioner was under consideration. Subsequently, when he suffered a criminal case, he was not considered. After dismissal of the criminal case, the petitioner made a representation, based on which, a Special Officer from the Secretariat has sent a letter dated 20.08.2008, to the Superintending Engineer of the Board, to grant ex- gratia to the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 29.11.2008, accepted the request of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia amount which fact goes to prove the case of the petitioner that he has been continuously working by receiving the ex-gratia payment. Therefore, the reason assigned in the impugned proceedings that his case cannot be considered for regularisation for the reason that he ceased to receive ex-gratia payment every year, does not stand for any good reason. 4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner suffered a criminal case alleging that he involved in theft of wires of the respondents' Board, the said submission cannot be sustained, as the criminal case itself ended in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquittal by order dated 05.03.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, in C.C.No.432/2006, holding the petitioner not guilty of the criminal charges. Further, the respondents had not filed their counter to support their case. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition by giving a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Mazdhoor. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar smn To 1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 012 2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 144, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 012 3. The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Villupuram EDC, Villupuram 1 cc To Mr.S.Mohanasundarasan, Advocate, SR.36096 1 cc To Mr.G.Vasudevan, Advocate, SR.37045 W.P.No.19888 of 2008 GR (CO) RH (9.8.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/