JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common award passed by the first respondent made in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 23.02.2011 and the order passed in E.P.No.9 of 2013 in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 30.01.2014 and quash the same.) 1. The writ on hand has been filed to quash the common Award dated 23.02.2011 passed by the first respondent made in C.P.No.48 of 2010 and the order dated 30.01.2014 passed in E.P.No.9 of 2013 in C.P.No.48 of 2010. 2. The petitioner is the Superintending Engineer-TANGEDCO. The petitioner states that the second respondent-workman was appointed as Helper in the services of the TANGEDCO on 23.04.1999 based on the proceedings taken pursuant to Justice Khalid Commission Report. The second respondent-workman was absorbed as a permanent employee and thereafter retired from service as a Wireman on 30.06.2006. 3. The second respondent-workman is seeking pension reckoning the period of service from the year 1980 to 1998 as a contract labourer had filed the computation petition claiming pension from 01.09.2007 to 28.02.2009. As per the Pension Rules applicable to the petitioner-TANGEDCO, employees who have completed 10 years of regular service are entitled to pension, whereas the second respondent-workman had put in the services of 7 years 2 months and 8 days and therefore, he is not entitled for pension as per Pension Rules. 4. It is contended by the writ petitioner-TANGEDCO that the second respondent-workman was not directly employed by the petitioner- TANGEDCO prior to 23.04.1999 and he was employed by a Private Contractor with whom the respondent-TANGEDCO entrusted its works of specified nature and for a specified sum. 5. Therefore, the claim of the second respondent-workman for counting of the contract labourer services cannot be considered. The first respondent has not considered the provisions of the Pension Rules and granted the benefit, which is in violation of the Pension Scheme as applicable to the petitioner-TANGEDCO. 6. Pertinently, the issue in this regard, more-so, the claim of the contract labourers to count the period was considered by this Court in WP No.10884 of 2015 and an order was passed on 08.08.2022 and the relevant paragraphs 2 to 4 are extracted as under:- “2. 6. Pertinently, the issue in this regard, more-so, the claim of the contract labourers to count the period was considered by this Court in WP No.10884 of 2015 and an order was passed on 08.08.2022 and the relevant paragraphs 2 to 4 are extracted as under:- “2. The petitioner was initially engaged as Contract Labourer by a private contractor with whom the TANGEDCO entered into an agreement. Thus, the petitioner was not initially appointed in the services of the TANGEDCO, but, engaged by a private contractor. The TANGEDCO regularized contract labourers engaged by private contractors by way of implementation of certain schemes. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed in TANGEDCO services only with effect from 01.05.1999 and served till 30.06.2007. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not completed the minimum qualified service of ten years under the pension scheme, he was not granted with the monthly pension. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation to count 50'% of the services rendered by him as contractor labourer under the private contractor between 01.07.1986 to 30.04.1999. 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that counting of 50% of services would arise only if an employee served in the TANGEDCO establishment and the said provision would not be applicable in respect of contract labourers, who were engaged by private contractors and was working under the said contractor. The petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules of TANGEDCO. He was engaged as a contract labourer and therefore, the services under the private contractor cannot be construed as qualified service for the purpose of counting of 50% of services. 4. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in W.A.(MD) No.785 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "5. We would have accepted such plea but for Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which states that the date of commencement of qualifying service for the purpose of pension should be the date in which he takes charge in the first appointment either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity in the concerned department. While serving through the INDCOSERVE Society, it can never be said that the respondent/writ petitioner was in a qualifying service (i.e.,) either substantively or in an officiating or in temporary capacity on the rolls of the appellants Board. 6. While serving through the INDCOSERVE Society, it can never be said that the respondent/writ petitioner was in a qualifying service (i.e.,) either substantively or in an officiating or in temporary capacity on the rolls of the appellants Board. 6. At best, the respondent was one among many members of the Society, working on contract basis with the appellants Board, which was abolished by G.O.Ms.No.950, Labour and Employment Department, dated 08.08.1990. Therefore, the Government Order makes it clear that there is demarcation consequent to G.O.Ms.No.950, Labour and Employment Department, dated 08.08.1990. Prior to that, the respondent and all other members of INDCOSERVE were Contract Labourers and not appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity of the appellants Board in a qualifying service. On issuance of the said Government Order, pursuant to absorption on 01.05.1999, the respondent became an employee of the appellants Board. If that fact is clear and undisputed, the commencement of qualifying service would be reckoned from 01.05.1999 and not before that. Service as a member of the Society (INDCOSERVE), a contract which came to be abolished, can never be a qualifying service. In such view of the matter, as per Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the respondent is ineligible for pension unless and until he puts in the qualifying years of service as required under Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 or the Board's Proceedings, as has been prescribed earlier would be applicable only in respect of service viz., Nominal Muster Roll or Temporary Casual Labourer in the service of the Board and not for the members of a Society. 7. We find no reason to accept G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 or the Board's Proceedings could be extended to Contract Labourers, unless the Government or the Board specifically takes a conscious decision to extend the benefit to the members of the Society, who had put in long years of service as Contract Labourers and were subsequently, absorbed. We would, however, like to express our concern that the Government and the Board should consider and issue appropriate Government Orders similar to that of G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009, to consider the plight of large number of employees, who had put in long years of service for the benefit of the Board even as Contract Labourers through the Society or otherwise. 8. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we find that neither G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25.08.2009 nor the Board's Proceedings No.31, dated 08.09.2011, would come to the benefit of the respondent/writ petitioner and in terms of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which clearly provides that the commencement of qualifying service of a Government servant will be the date on which he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the case on hand, appointment has not been made in respect of the present respondent/writ petitioner till 01.05.1999. He is not entitled to seek inclusion of the period of service as member of society for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the absence of rule or otherwise. 9. On an allegation of arbitrariness and unfair treatment, we called upon Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the appellants to produce the records and justify that in all cases where the absorbed employees fell short of qualifying service they have been uniformly treated by declining the grant of pension. In order to dispel this plea and to prove that there is no arbitrariness or unfair treatment to one or other person, more particularly the respondent, Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the appellants produced the details of all the employees who were absorbed on 1.5.1999 and who had qualifying service between 2 to 9 years and were not extended the said benefit. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the learned Single Judge directing appellants to consider the period of service as member of the Society for pensionary benefits is erroneous. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent/writ petitioner will be entitled to make a representation to the Board in the light of what we have indicated earlier to consider his plea and similarly placed persons for grant of pensionary benefits de hors the government order and board proceedings, as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the principles considered by this Court, the writ petition is to be considered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the principles considered by this Court, the writ petition is to be considered. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the first respondent in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 23.02.2011 and in E.P.No.9 of 2013 in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 30.01.2014, are quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.