Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Raj Kumari vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 1 July, 2021

                         1                          OA No. 819/2021



          Central Administrative Tribunal
            Principal Bench, New Delhi

                 O.A. No.819/2021
                M.A. No. 1069/2021
                M.A. No. 1070/2021

           This the 1st day of July, 2021

            (Through Video Conferencing)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
     Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

1.   Smt. Raj Kumari
     Wife of Shri Devender Singh
     Aged about 37 years
     R/o - J-60, Gali No. 7, Mohan Garden,
     (Near Pipal Chowk), Uttam Nagar
     New Delhi-110059

2.   Mrs. Nisha Kumari
     Wife of Shri Punit Panwar
     Aged about 36 years
     Designation Data Entry Operator
     R/o - House No. 178, Ward No. 21, Gurunanak
     Colony,
     Nehru Park, Near Civil Hospital Bhadurgarh,
     District Jhajjar, Haryana-124507

3.   Mr. Vikas
     Son of Shri Ishwar Singh
     Aged about 36 years
     Designation Data Entry Operator
     R/o - House No. 28, Masjid Wali Road, Near Shiv
     Mandir,
     Village Mundka, Delhi-110041

4.   Mr. Umesh Vats
     Son of Shri Swatantranand Vats
     Aged about 31 years
     Designation Data Entry Operator
     R/o - Plot No. 509, MR Bharti Public School,
     Mundka, Delhi-110041

5.   Smt. Gomti Vats
     Daughter of Lt Shri Lakshmi Chand Vats
     Aged about 36 years
     Designation Data Entry Operator
     R/o - D-92, Bhagya Vihar,
                                 2                            OA No. 819/2021



           Ranikhera, Delhi-110081

     6.    Shri Neeraj Kumar Yadav
           Son of Shri Satish Kumar Yadav
           Aged about 28 years
           Designation Data Entry Operator
           R/o - House No. 331, VPO Bagdola,
           Dwarka, Sector-8, New Delhi-110077
                                                      ... Applicants
     (By Advocate : Shri Pramod Kr. Sharma)

                                 Versus

           Prasar Bharti
           Through its Directorate General
           Broadcasting Corporation of India
           All India Radio, Akaswani Bhawan,
           Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
                                                   ... Respondents
     (By Advocate : Shri S. M. Arif)



                          ORDER (Oral)

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

The applicants claim that they are working as Data Entry Operators (DEO) on contractual basis for the past about 14 years in the Prasar Bharati (PB). They filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment, and to continue them further.

2. The applicants contend that they were issued Identity Cards from time to time and were also assessed about performance. Placing reliance upon a Circular dated 11.01.2021, they claim 3 OA No. 819/2021 the relief of regularization. The OA was listed earlier and an objection was raised as to the very maintainability of it.

3. Today, we heard Shri Pramod Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S. M. Arif, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The applicants no doubt claim that they are working in PB as DEO for the past 14 years on contract basis. A serious objection is raised stating that the applicants were never engaged by the PB. The applicants filed an order dated 10.07.2013 as Annexure A-3. A perusal thereof discloses that the DEOs engaged through M/s Scotland Services & Contract, New Delhi were directed to report to skill test on 19.07.2013. It only shows that the work of Data Entry Operations was entrusted to an outsourcing agency and that, in turn, engaged persons like the applicants. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the applicants to show some proof or the other to indicate that the applicants were engaged by the PB. Nothing is forthcoming.

5. Reliance is placed upon the orders of assessment of work said to have been made by the officials of the PB. That may, at the most reflect the method of functioning of the applicants during their work. It is far from saying that the applicants were employed by the PB.

4 OA No. 819/2021

6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any basis to grant the relief to the applicants. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.





(Aradhana Johri)                   (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
   Member (A)                           Chairman


pj/vb/uma