Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Shyam Sunder vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 5 February, 2016

                                                           OA 3767/2012
                                  1


             Central Administrative Tribunal
                     Principal Bench
                          New Delhi

                        O.A.No.3767/2012

                                   Order Reserved on: 21.01.2016
                                  Order pronounced on 05.02.2016

           Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
          Hon'ble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)

Shyam Sunder
S/o Shri Kabool Singh
R/o Village Shahpur
P.O. Gokulpuri
Chauhan Patti
Delhi - 110 094.                         ...   Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Shukla)

    Versus

  1. Union of India
     Through the Secretary
     Ministry of Information &
     Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan
     New Delhi.

  2. Director General
     All India Radio, Akashvani
     Parliament Street
     New Delhi.

  3. Deputy Director (Admn./|Engg.)
     All Radio and TV
     D-6, Godown
     6, Probin Road
     Delhi - 110 026.
                                                                              OA 3767/2012
                                          2

     4. The Chief Engineer, North Zone
        Akashvani and Doordarshan
        Jam Nagar House
        Shahjahan Road
        New Delhi.                   ....            Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. S.M.Arif)

                                   ORDER

By     V.   Ajay Kumar, Member (J):

The applicant, who was engaged as Khalasi on casual basis from 1993 to 1994, and whose services were terminated w.e.f. 07.07.1994, filed the OA seeking the following reliefs:

(a) To force the respondents to implement the judgment dated 10.9.1999 passed in O.A.No.1075/1995.

(b) To call for the record in respect of engagement of three persons who were apprized to the applicant through the letter dated 27.2.2012.

(c) To impose exemplary cost on the respondents for doing illegal acts and deeds thereby creating hindrance in respect of compliance of judgment dated 10.9.1999.\

(d) To direct the respondents to accommodate the applicant in accordance with law as they had filed wrong affidavit.

(e) To allow the O.A. of the applicant in terms of para 4 of the Original Application.

(f) To pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."

2. The applicant earlier filed OA No.1075/1995 contending that he had rendered the requisite 206 days service and accordingly entitled to grant temporary status and regularization and that though his services were terminated in the year 1994 but the respondents retained some OA 3767/2012 3 of his juniors and also regularized their services and accordingly prayed for similar benefits on par with the said juniors.

3. This Tribunal, by its Order dated 10.09.1999, disposed of the said OA by observing as under:

"I have carefully considered the contention of the applicant regarding the production of vouchers. Normally, the Tribunal in judicial review is not expected to go into disputed questions of fact. The judicial review is to see that the rules have been complied with and the case of government employee has been dealt with fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, I notice that directions were given to the respondents to produce the muster rolls. I have, therefore, perused the same. As regards the period of July, 1994 it appears therefrom that out of 20 Beldars almost all of them were not reengaged from 6th July. The applicant was at S.No.10. Clearly the services of a number of Beldars were dispensed with and the applicant was one of them. This goes against the contention that the applicant had abandoned the work of his own. It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the scheme for regularisation on the ground that he had abandoned the services of the respondents.

The second question is whether the applicant is entitled on the basis of his service rendered for grant of temporary status and in due course regularisation. From the muster roll copy it cannot be confirmed that the applicant had rendered the requisite service. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the engagement of applicant for 196 days which is admitted by the respondents. On this the applicant is not entitled to the grant of temporary status.

7. It has, however, to be seen that since the applicant had not left service of his own accord he is entitled to reengagement if work is available in preference to freshers or those who have rendered lesser service. Accordingly, this O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that if the applicant applies for reengagement and if the respondents require casual labour, they will consider the applicant for reengagement in preference to those who have rendered lesser service prior to the date of his disengagement. Thereafter they will also consider his case for grant of temporary status and regularisation in terms of scheme of Department of Personnel O.M. dated 1.9.1993.

8. No costs."

4. Alleging violation of the aforesaid orders applicant filed CP No.270/2000 and the same was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2001 as under:

"4. We have already noted that by the Tribunals' order dated 10.9.1999, respondents have been directed that if they require casual labourers, they should consider the applicant's case for re- engagement in preference to those who have rendered lesser service prior to the date of his disengagement and thereafter consider his case for grant of temporary status and eventually his regularization, in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.

5. Reiterating the same, we dismiss the CP. Notices discharged."

5. The applicant filed another contempt case in CP no.458 of 2012, however, withdrawn the same on 04.07.2012.

6. The present OA also filed seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the judgement dated 10.09.1999 in OA No.1075/1995 against which he already filed two Contempt Petitions, and out of the same CP No.270/2000 was dismissed on merits and whereas CP No.458/2012 was dismissed as withdrawn.

7. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the pleadings on record.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant in fact, through the present OA, tried to reargue the issues which were already decided in OA No.1075/1995, which is not permissible as per the settled principles of law. It is his further case that the respondents by way of false contentions and affidavits mislead the Tribunal and as a result his earlier CP was dismissed and hence, they are liable for punishment under Section 340 Cr.PC for perjury.

5

9. Since there is no cause of action for filing the present OA, and the allegations of perjury said to have been committed by the respondents in an earlier CP cannot be decided in this OA, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the OA is dismissed. No costs.

(Shekhar Agarwal)                          (V.   Ajay Kumar)
Member (A)                                       Member (J)

/nsnrvak/