Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saleem Jehangir vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 3 April, 2025
1
Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 142/2018
This the 3rd day of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Saleem Jehangir
S/o Mohammad Sultan,
Aged 44 yrs.
R/o: Iddgah,: Kashmir (J&K)
2. Murtaza Ali Bhat
S/o Gllulam Hassan Bhat,
Aged· 43 yrs.
R/o: Budgam, Kashmir (J&K)
3. Fayaz Ahmad Malik
S/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Malik,
Aged 44 yrs.
R/o: Natipora, Srinagar (J&K)
4. Raja Masood Ahmad Wani
S/o · Abdul Gani Wani,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o: Soura, Kashmir (J&K)
5. Mohammad Sharief Bhat
S/o Ahmad Khaliq Bhat
Aged 44 yrs.
R/o: Kreeri, Baramulla, Kashmfr (J&K)
6. Tassaduq Hussain Rather
S/o Habibulla Rather,
Aged 40 yrs.
R/o: Padshahi Bagh, Kashmir (J&K)
7. Mohammad Amir Kathoo
S/o Ghulam Rasool,
Aged 43 yrs.
R/o: Dangerpora, Tailbal, Kashmir (J&K)
8. Kewal Dayal
S/o Sat Pal Dayal,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o: Sonawar, Kashmir (J&K)
2
Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018
Court No. V
9. Irshad Ahmad Lone
S/o · Ghulam Nabi Lone,
Aged 46 yrs.
R/o: Channapora, Kashmir (J&K)
10. Firdous Ahmad Bhatt
S/o. Gulam Mohamad Bhat,
Aged 46 yrs.
R/o: Padsha Bagh; Kashmir (J&K)
11. Mukhpal Singh
S/o Rajender Singh,
Aged 49 yrs.
R/o Satral, Kashmir (J&K)
12. Mustaq Ahmad Guroo
S/o Abdul Salam Guru,
Aged 47 yrs.
R/o Dalgate, Kashmir (J&K).
13. Abdul Rasheed Sheikh
S/o Gulam Ahmad Sheikh,
Aged 43 yrs
R/o Alouchibagh, Kashmir (J&K)
14. Mustaq Ahmad Sheikh (1)
S/o Gulam Ahmad Sheikh,
Aged 47 yrs.
R/o Alouchi Bagh, Kashmir (J&K)
15. Mustaq Ahmad Sheikh (2)
S/o Gulam Mohammad Sheikh.
R/o Chatisingh Pora, Annatnag, Kashmir (J&K)
16. Hilal Ahmad Shah
S/o Abdul Hameed Shah,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Mirza KamiiHawal, Srinagar (J&K)
17. Farooq Ahmad Shah
S/o Abdul Gani Shah,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Sanwar, Srinagar (J&K)
18. Naseer Ahmad Dar
S/o Abdul Gaffar Dar,
Aged 41 yrs.
R/o Saida Kadal, Rainawari, Srinagar (J&K)
3
Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018
Court No. V
19. MehrajUd-din Sheikh
S/o Mohammad Abdula Sheikh,
Aged 40 yrs.
R/o Buchwara Dalgate, Srinagar (J&K)
20. Shameema Akhtar
D/o Gulam Ahmad Baba,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Shivpura, Srinagar (J&K)
21. Javed Ahmad Sheikh
S/o Gulam Sheikh,
Aged 41 yrs.
R/o Hawal, Sri nagar (J&K)
22. Bashir Ahmad Hakeem
S/o Mohammad Ibrahim Hakim,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Baramula, Kashmir (J&K)
23. Sarwar Ahniad Malik
S/o Mohammad Makbul Malik,
Aged 46 yrs.
R/o Dalgate, Srinagar (J&K)
24. Hammedullah Rather
S/o Mohammad Akbar Rather,
Aged 48 yrs.
R/o: QaziGund, Kashmir (J&K)
25. Abdul Qayoom Rather
S/o Mohammad Kamal Rather,
Aged 48 yrs.
R/o Wathura, Chadora, Kashmir (J&K)
26. Gulam Navi Bani
S/o Gulam Ahmad Bani,
Aged 47 yrs
R/o: Kunzar Tangmarg, Kashmir (J&K)
27. Farooq Ahmad Sheikh
S/o Abdul Aziz Sheikh,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Sonwar Srinagar (J&K)
28. Mohammad Ashraf Akhoon
S/o Ali Mohammad Akhoon
R/o Chatterhama, Kashmir (J&K)
4
Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018
Court No. V
29. Abdul Rasheed Parray
S/o Gulam Navi Parray,
Aged_45 yrs.
R/o Wathura Chadora, Kashmir (J&K)
30. Abdul Majeed Bhat
S/o Gulam Kadir Bhat,
Aged 44 yrs
R/o Rainawari, Srinagar (J&K)
31. Fiyaz Ahmad Baba
S/o Gulam. Ahmad Baba,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Kanhama, Chadora, Kashmir (J&K)
32. Gulam Mohammad Sheikh
S/o Zahoor Ahmad Sheikh,
Aged 44 yrs
R/o Nowshara, Srinagar (J&K)
33. Farooq Ahmed Hafiz
S/o Gulam Mohammad Hafiz,
Aged 50 yrs.
R/o Natipora, Srinagar (J&K)
34. Ali Mohammad Mir
S/o Assadullha Mir,
Aged 43 yrs.
R/o Badshah Bagh, Srinagar (J&K)
35. Mohammad Ashraf Akhoon
S/o Ali Mohammad Akhoon,
Aged 42 yrs.
R/o Chaitrahama, Burzahama, Kashmir (J&K) ·
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Reyaz Ajan Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr. Aqib Baig)
Versus
1. C.E.O. Prasar Bharti,
Directorate General : Doordarshan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110001
2. Directorate General Doordarshan,
Doordarshan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001
5
Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018
Court No. V
3. Deputy Director,
Doordarshan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110001
4. Director, Doordarshan,
Srinagar
....Respondents
(By Advocate: None)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) On 04.07.2023, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the scheme for grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers was formulated and circulated by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training vide OM dated 10.09.1993. As per the said scheme, the benefit of grant of temporary status and subsequent regularization was to be given subject to fulfilment of the criteria prescribed therein which is broadly mentioned in para 4 of the said office order. He further states that as per the order of the respondents themselves dated 21.04.1997 and 31.10.1995 the applicants were found eligible as per the prescribed criteria and that is why they were extended the benefit vide the two orders quoted above w.e.f. 1995 and 1997, whereas the same should have been given w.e.f. 10.09.1993.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicants have not been able to produce any document as per which they can show that they were in employment before 1993 and were due to be given the benefit from 10.09.1993. She further states that the applicants had accepted the decision of grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1995 and 1997 and had not objected to the same. The issue is hopelessly time barred.
On hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it is felt that the issue needs certain clarification before the Tribunal can arrive at a 6 Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V final decision. The respondents are hereby directed to once again check all their records and come out with a clear reason as to why the applicants cannot be extended the benefit of temporary status w.e.f. 1993 particularly in view of para 2 of their order issued in the year 1997 which specifically indicates that the benefit has been extended to the applicants in terms of the OM of DOP&T dated 10.09.1993."
2. Despite the said directions, several opportunities have been taken by the respondents on the pretext that the records have to be obtained from Srinagar, which has been reflected vide orders dated 23.08.2023, 07.10.2023, 17.01.2024, 06.02.2024, 15.03.2024, 03.04.2024, 01.05.2024, 03.10.2024 and 16.12.2024. An affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 29.01.2025, in compliance of the order dated 04.07.2023, wherein the following has been stated:-
"3. I state that Directorate General of Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati has made earnest efforts to trace out the records of the Applicants herein. The Directorate General has made repeated requests to Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar seeking documents in their possession regarding the employment of the Applicants for further examination. However, the Directorate General of Doordarshan has repeatedly received the same response from Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar that all the documents/records were either burnt in the fire incident of 2011 or damaged in the floods of 2014.
4. I state that the Directorate General of Doordarshan has made all possible efforts to obtain the documents as sought by this Hon'ble Tribunal but the same could not be obtained from Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar due to reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been appearing for quite some time and, therefore, we have 7 Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V left with no other option, but to dispose of the present matter based on the pleadings available on record, as the learned counsel for the applicant has been travelling for the proceedings in the matter throughout from Srinagar for this case only.
4. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, applicants are seeking following reliefs :-
"8. (a) In the premises it is therefore prayed that this OA be accepted and the Hon'ble tribunal may please pass appropriate directions, orders and to set aside and quash the impugned dated 20.07.2016 passed by the opposite party and further by issuance of appropriate directions to release in the favour of the applicants arrears w.e.f. 1993 and also other service consequential benefits including regularization against the posts held by the applicants, to which the applicants are entitled to in accordance with law and rule.
(b) The Hon'ble tribunal may pass any other order or direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(c) Award cost as deemed appropriate."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant impugns the speaking order dated 20.07.2016, which has been passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 18.05.2015, where the rejection is merely on the ground that the claim of the applicant at belated stage is not trainable.
8Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V
6. We have ourselves, since there has been no assistance rendered from the respondents counsel despite several opportunities, draw a reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit, which are as under:-
"1. The principal relief sought in the OA is that the Applicants be regularised and arrears w.e.f. 1993 and· all other consequential benefits of the service including regularisation against the post held by the Applicants be ordered. The OA is filed on 10.1.2018 and is clearly barred by limitation. On this ground alone, the OA merits dismissal.
2. That the Applicants are praying for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1.9.1993. It is well settled that such status could be granted under the DOPT Scheme only to persons who were being engaged on that date and had completed 240 days of engagement. On the other hand, the Applicants were granted temporary status on different dates namely 1.11.1995, 1.11.1996 and 21.4.1997. From the same it is evident that the Applicants were not being engaged as on 1.10.1993 and as such they are not covered by the DOPT Scheme of 1993. In fact, the Applicants had readily accepted the order granting temporary status to them in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and did not raise any claim for grant of temporary status from ( ' 1993. The belated OA after the expiry of such a long period is barred by limitation.
3. Applicants had filed an OA before the Chandigarh Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of with a direction that a reasoned and speaking order be passed on the representations submitted by the Applicants. Pursuant to the said order, an order dated 20.7.2016 was passed by the Respondents noting the above stated facts. The said order is also sought to be challenged by the Applicants. It is submitted that the said order is in consonance with law and based on the facts on record. The Applicants having been engaged after 1.10.1993 are not entitled to the reliefs claimed for."
7. We also take notice of the averments made in the counter affidavit, wherein it has been specifically stated that the applicants were not engaged prior to 01.10.1993 and does not fulfills the eligibility criteria set out in the said scheme. The said averments in the counter affidavit are belied on the fact that if that have 9 Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V been situation, the question of grant of temporary status after 1995/1996/1997 does not arise at all.
7. Having heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the records and the scheme thereto, it is not in dispute by the respondents themselves that the scheme of grant of temporary status, came into effect on 10.09.1993, which was to come into effect from 01.09.1993, the said scheme contemplated to clause P- 4, and 5.
7.1. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid scheme, the office orders dated (Annexure-A/1 of rejoinder) dated 31.10.1995, 29.10.1996 and 21.04.1997, came to be passed in respect of the present applicants. This is apparent that since the applicants fulfilled all the eligibility terms and conditions, the applicants were entitled to grant of temporary status from the date of implementation of the scheme i.e. 01.09.1993. As per own showing of the respondents. The rejection cannot be accepted since the direction were pursuant to the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 18.05.2015, the matter ought to have been decided on the merits of the case. The respondents themselves have filed an affidavit, and stated that the records are not available 10 Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V with them, which have been either burnt in fire accident of 2011 or damaged in flood of 2014. 7.2. In view of the above, if two views are possible it is a settled law that the law in favour of the applicant should be passed. More particularly, in light of the fact that the implementation order i.e. scheme dated 10.09.1993, came into operation w.e.f. 01.09.1993. 7.3. It is also noticeable fact that similarly situated persons as that of applicants, who are already working have been granted the benefit from 01.19.1993, which is apparent from the following order dated 08.02.1994, which reads as under:-
"In accordance with the instructions contained in the Deptt. of Personnel and Trainings O.M.No.51016/2/5Estt(C) dated 10.9.1993 read with Dte. General, Doordarshan New Delhi's O.M. No.3/41/93-S.II dated 11.10.1993, the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar is pleased to grant the Temporary Status of Group-'D' Employees in the scale pay of Rs.750-12-870-3B-14-940-Plus DA, HRA & CCA in rest of the following eligible persons who fulfill the criteria under rules with effect from 1.10.1993 (FN) until further orders :-
S.No. Name
1. Shri Barkha Bahadur Thapa
2. Shri Jhon Mohd. Farash
3. Shri Abdul Ahad Peerzada
4. Shri Bashir Ahmed Mir
5. Shri Shamim Ahmed Sheikh
6. Shri Bashir Ahmed Dar
7. Shri Mohd. Amin Katoo
8. Shri Ali M-ohd. Mir 11 Item No. 68 O.A. No. 142/2018 Court No. V
2. Terms and conditions of Temporary Status are as per Dte. O.M. No.3/41/93-S.II dated 10.9.1993 (copy enclosed) will remain in force."
8. In view of the same, we, therefore, dispose of the present matter by directing the respondents for anti dating the temporary status of the applicants w.e.f. 01.10.1993, as has been given to the similarly situated persons, with all consequential benefits. A revised consequential Office Orders shall be passed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. This disposes of the present O.A. All pending M.As, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/