JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the rejection of pension passed by the 2nd respondent vide letter No.064447/411/G.58/G.581/2015-2 dated 11.04.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner on par with his junior C. Thomas w.e.f 29.04.1992, as Helper with all consequential benefits and disburse the terminal and pension benefits on account of retirement by calculating the qualified service from 25.04.1992 to 30.11.2005, and count the half of service of the petitioner from 1983 to 28.04.1992 as per (FB) TANGEDCO proceedings No.31 dated 08.09.2011.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for his absorption on par with his junior one Mr.C.Thomas with effect from 29.04.1992 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner further seeks the relief to count half of the contract services of the writ petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 3. The petitioner was initially joined as Contract Labourer in the year 1983. His services were utilised in the office of Assistant Engineer. (Construction) at Koteripattu Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 4. Pursuant to the Khalid Commission report, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under took the process of absorption of these contract labourers in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. The huge process of permanent absorption, wherein progress under the monitoring of the Honourable Supreme Court of India during the relevant point of time i.e., 1991 to 1999. Finally, the final order was passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition No.357 of 1993 dated 15.02.1999, which reads as under: “In view of the present order the earlier order passed by this Court on 19th January 1995 stating that the Board shall not made any appointment in future till all the employees are absorbed will not survive any further and will stand vacated.” 5. Pursuant to the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court and based on the Khalid Commission report, the petitioner was also absorbed as permanent employee in the Board with effect from 28.02.1998. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that along with the all other contract labours, the petitioner also participated in the process of interview in the year 1991. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that along with the all other contract labours, the petitioner also participated in the process of interview in the year 1991. His junior one Mr.C.Thomas was absorbed in the year 1992. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered for permanent absorption during the year 1992. However, he was absorbed only in the year 1998 after a lapse of six years. Thus, the petitioner states that he is entitled for permanent absorption on par with his junior one Mr.C.Thomas from the date on which he was permanently absorbed i.e. on 29.04.1992. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is not seeking any monetary benefits. However, the absorption is to be granted from the date on which his junior Mr.C.Thomas was absorbed on 29.04.1992 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. That apart, half of the contract services are also to be taken into consideration for calculating the qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. 8. Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5176 of 2015 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 16.12.2015, setting aside the order of rejection and directing the respondents to take note of the facts as pleaded by the petitioner and examine the case and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 11.04.2016 was issued. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as contract labourer on daily wage basis and therefore, the terms and conditions attached for contract labourers were agreed and labourers were working. Considering their long service as contract labourers and based on the litigations filed by many such contract labourers, the Honourable Supreme Court of India appointed Justice Khalid Commission for the purpose of framing a scheme for absorption of these contract labourers. Based on the report of Justice Khalid Commission, the process of absorption was undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the process continued for few years. Thus, the absorption of the contract labourers itself was a concession extended to them. 10. During the absorption of these contract labourers, the Board also faced various difficulties in ascertaining the genuinity of the employment of these contract labourers. Thus, the absorption of the contract labourers itself was a concession extended to them. 10. During the absorption of these contract labourers, the Board also faced various difficulties in ascertaining the genuinity of the employment of these contract labourers. Huge number of contract labourers were considered for permanent absorption and in respect of certain contract labourers, the records were not available or for want of verification or for other reasons, there was a delay in absorbing of those contract labourers. 11. In the present case, the reasons for rejection states as follows: “The Justice Khalid Commission recommended scheme of preference in selecting the workers for appointment, according to the descending number of years put in by the workers. As per this, the contract workers whose services beyond 10 years and above were absorbed as Helper during 1991. Eventhough, your name and C.Thomas came to contain in the annexure to the letter dated 12.11.1991, and C. Thomas was engaged from 1980, he was absorbed into the services of the Board on 24.04.1992 along with other similarly placed persons as the Date of Birth of him was found correct during 1992. In the case of you, as per the PCBs available, you were engaged from 1986 and as such you were not completed 10 years during 1991. (In your representation dated 18.09.2006 and your claim before the Labour Officer/ Cuddalore you agreed that you were engaged as contract labour from 1986). Also, during the identification before the selection committee, you had produced your Date of Birth as 08.11.1947 but the Date of Birth furnished before the commission by the concerned union was 08.05.1956. Hence, your name along with other similarly placed persons numbering about 106 were sent to the Superintending Engineer/Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle for verification of records and your genuineness by letter dated 12.11.1991. Therefore, as per the Justice Khalid Commission's report, your name had reserved for absorption along with other similarly persons and permitted to work as contract labour till your turn for absorption and Date of Birth verification. As such, you were absorbed into the services of the Board on 17.02.1998.” 12. There are several reasons for delay in absorption of certain contract labourers. Pertinently, the contract labourers were absorbed based on the report of Justice Khalid Commission and it was a concession extended, considering the long services of these contract labourers. As such, you were absorbed into the services of the Board on 17.02.1998.” 12. There are several reasons for delay in absorption of certain contract labourers. Pertinently, the contract labourers were absorbed based on the report of Justice Khalid Commission and it was a concession extended, considering the long services of these contract labourers. Thus, the absorption was made based on the verification of documents and after ascertaining the genuinity of the services rendered by the persons as contract labourers. Under these circumstances, the question of seniority as contract labourers would not arise at all. 13. Certain contract labourers could have engaged and terminated and thereafter re-engaged. There are several mitigating factors, which would have been arisen during the absorption of these contract labourers. Thus, the list prepared for absorption cannot be construed or equated to seniority list of employees. It is the list prepared for identifying the contract labourers. Thus, identification of contract labourers by preparing a list cannot be construed as a seniority list for the purpose of granting of permanent absorption. Absorption is granted based on various other factors including the genuinity of services rendered as contract labourer and verification of documents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that amongst the contract labourers senior, junior would not arise at all and the list of contract labourers prepared is only for the purpose of grant of permanent absorption pursuant to the report of Justice Khalid Commission and thus, the very basis of the writ petitioner to grant of permanent absorption on par with his junior Mr.C.Thomas from 29.04.1992 itself is untenable. 14. The contract services are not considered for the purpose of counting of half of the services. The initial appointment of the contract labourers were not made in accordance with the rules. Their services were mostly engaged through private contractors and some times through Departmental Authorities without issuing any order of appointment. Thus, the contract labourers were engaged through private contractors and without issuing any appointment orders. The initial appointment of the contract labourers were not made in accordance with the rules. Their services were mostly engaged through private contractors and some times through Departmental Authorities without issuing any order of appointment. Thus, the contract labourers were engaged through private contractors and without issuing any appointment orders. Those factors were verified and the list of contract labourers were prepared pursuant to the Justice Khalid Commission report only for permanent absorption and therefore, question of senior or junior in the matter of consideration for absorption would not arise at all and the absorptions were made based on the verification of the documents and ascertaining the genuinity of the contract labours, who served in the Electricity Board on different spells and thus, it may not be possible for the authorities to prepare a seniority list amongst the contract labourers as they were discontinued and re-engaged etc. 15. As per the Pension Rules, the writ petitioner was regularly appointed in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay with effect from 17.02.1998. He was absorbed under the special scheme pursuant to the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of Justice Khalid Commission. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefits from the date of his regular absorption i.e. on 17.02.1998 and the period of services as contract labourer cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying services for grant of pension. The observations made by this Court in the earlier orders passed in W.P.No.5176 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015 as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered, in view of the fact that those factors were also considered by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the very same order passed in W.P.No.5176 of 2015. 16. At the outset, the respondents were directed to look into all the facts and circumstance and took a policy decision and on merits and in accordance with law. Therefore, observations or recording of facts made in an order, which resulted in a direction, directing the authorities to consider the issues cannot be considered as a final decision or final findings. Such observations are made only for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioner. 17. More elaborately, this Court is frequently passing orders, directing the authorities to consider the representation. Such observations are made only for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioner. 17. More elaborately, this Court is frequently passing orders, directing the authorities to consider the representation. While passing such an order, certain submissions made by the respective learned counsels are recorded and certain observations are also made. However, if the Court granted liberty to the authorities to consider the issues, then those observations cannot be a binding factor for the purpose of deciding issues independently by the authorities. If it is taken as a binding factor, then the liberty granted will disappear and that was not the intention of the order and therefore, no litigant can take undue advantage of the observations made in an order, which resulted in a direction to consider the representation by the respondents. Therefore, the observations relied on by the petitioner are of no avail to get the relief of retrospective permanent absorption. 18. With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.