Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Prakash Singh vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 18 May, 2022
1
OA No. 2074/2015
Item No.12
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2074/2015
Order Reserved on: 05.05.2022
Order Pronounced on: 18.05.2022
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
1. Om Prakash Singh, aged 31 years,
s/o Sh. Rambhawal Singh,
working as Casual Floor Assistant,
Doordarsan Kendra, Delhi
r/o E-II/599, 4th Pushta, MCD School Road,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi-94
2. Anil Mathur, aged 50 years,
s/o Sh. SB Mathur,
working as Casual Floor Assistant,
Doordarsan Kendra, Delhi
r/o A-1/26, Vijaya Nagar, Dabri Palam,
Road, New Delhi-45 - Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Director General,
Doordarsan, Doordarsan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi
3. The Director (Admn.)
Doordarsan Kendra, Doordarsan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Vartika Sharma)
2
OA No. 2074/2015
Item No.12
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Tarunn Shridhar:
The applicants, who are working as Floor Assistants on casual basis in Doordarshan Kendra, are aggrieved that the benefit of regularization of service has not been extended to them, whereas a large number of similarly placed casual employees have been regularized in accordance with the Scheme of regularization of casual artists notified by the Doordarshan. To this effect, they seek the following reliefs in the instant Original Application:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 6/8.5.2015 (Annex.A/1) only to the extend by which the name of the applicants have not been included for regularization and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants from the same date i.e. from the date of regularization of the services of junior persons with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were engaged on casual basis as Floor Assistants on 24.09.1988 and 01.05.1989 respectively and 3 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 have been working in such capacity uninterruptedly till date. The respondent organization prepared a scheme for regularization of Casual Artists/employees in the year 1992, and thereafter in the year 1994 and extended the benefit of this Scheme to quite a few casual employees. However, the same benefit was denied to the applicants, who vented their grievances by approaching this Tribunal in OA No. 2241/1999. There were some other applicants too, who had joined them in the aforesaid OA. The OA got to be decided on 06.11.2000, wherein a direction was given to the respondents to consider regularization of the applicants in accordance with the Scheme, and if need be, review the number of posts available so that all casual artists/employees could be regularized.
3. To cut a long story short, the respondents, after preparing a list of employees eligible for regularization, regularized 233 such casual artists/employees vide order bearing No.31/49/2011-S.I.A dated 06/08.05.2015. Although this list contains as many as 233 names, the names of the applicants stood omitted. It is 4 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 this order which is under challenge in the present OA to the extent that the applicants' name should, too, have been included in the aforesaid list.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that the applicants were recruited/engaged as Floor Assistants on casual basis after following the laid down procedure for recruitment, there was complete objectivity and transparency in their recruitment. Moreover, at the time of recruitment, they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, including the prescribed age limit. However, the reason adduced by the respondents for denying them the benefit of regularization is that they were overage at the time of notification of the Regularization Scheme of 1992 and 1994. Learned counsel would argue that this is a very specious plea since eligibility of the applicants, as also other candidates, is to be evaluated with respect to the date of initial recruitment/engagement and not on a subsequent date, even though the Scheme for regularization may have been notified on such a date. As the applicants were eligible in all respects, including the prescribed age limit at the time of their initial engagement, there is absolutely no cause to hold 5 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 them ineligible at a later date only on the limited ground that a departmental scheme for regularization came into existence on that date. Learned counsel also mentions that each and every Casual Artist/employee, except for these two applicants, has been given the benefit of regularization, which points towards a highly discriminatory treatment meted out to them. Moreover, drawing attention to the order of regularization, learned counsel also establishes that the list contains names of few other employees regularized, who are elder to the present applicants, thus establishing that the respondents have themselves acted contrary to their requirement that the employees for the purpose of regularization should not have become overage at the time of notification of the Scheme.
5. Learned counsel also draws strength from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1493 of 1994 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court had gone to the extent of holding that even if a casual artist had crossed the upper age limit at the time of recruitment, he/she would still be eligible for appointment as it is 6 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 implied that the age limit stood relaxed at the time of initial engagement. Here is the case where the applicants were actually within the prescribed age limit and hence fulfilled this eligibility at the time of engagement. Learned counsel concludes his arguments by terming the action of the respondents arbitrary, drawing attention to the fact that the names of the applicants figured in the eligibility list but initially could not be regularized on account of non-availability of posts, but their names got excluded for no other reason, except for a singular reason of their having become overage at the time of notification of the Regularization Scheme. Learned counsel draws attention to a letter dated 13.05.2015 addressed by the Sr. Administrative Officer to the Director General, Doordarshan, which categorically mentions that "Shri Om Prakash Singh and Shri Anil Kumar Mathur, Casual Floor Assistants are eligible for regularization under the Scheme. Their names have been recommended by DDK, Delhi for regularization as Floor Assistants." In view of the categorical statement with respect to the eligibility of the applicants, there remains no ground before 7 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 the respondents to now deny them the benefit of Regularization Scheme, learned counsel concludes.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly contests the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants, submitting that regularization of casual artists/employees is to be considered and made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. The Scheme unambiguously stipulates that only such Casual Artists/employees shall be eligible for regularization who fall within the prescribed age limit at the time of notification of the Scheme. The Scheme has a provision for relaxation of age limit to a certain extent, but even after such a relaxation, the present applicants do not attain eligibility on this ground. She draws attention to the document placed on record, which indicates that after giving relaxation in the age limit, the applicant no.1 is overage by 6 months and 19 days, whereas the applicant no.2 is overage by 2 months and 5 days. The regularization being done under a notified Scheme, she goes on to submit that the provision of such a Scheme cannot be compromised with and if any relaxation is to be 8 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 done, it is to be done within the ambit of such a Scheme. While admitting that the applicants have been working uninterruptedly for the past three decades or so, she argues that while sympathy can be expressed at their circumstances, the same cannot be a ground for providing the relief, which has to be done within the boundaries of law. While the fact of the applicants name figuring in the initial list of eligible employees is not contested, the learned counsel points out that there were multiple levels of scrutiny and it is on a later scrutiny that the fact of ineligibility of the applicants was detected. Therefore, a mere recommendation for their regularization cannot override the provisions of the Scheme which renders them ineligible. Therefore, learned counsel argues, the respondents have no option, except to reject the claim of the applicants for regularization being contrary to the notified Scheme. She concludes by supporting her arguments with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5374/1998 dated 22.07.2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006)4 9 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 SCC 1, holding that casual employees cannot be regularized, unless there are vacancies in such sanctioned posts and such temporary employees cannot claim legitimate right or even expectation of regularization.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also contests the contention of the applicants that each and every Casual Artist/employee, except for the two applicants, has been given benefit of regularization and refers to this statement of the learned counsel for the applicant as vague.
8. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties at great length and carefully examined the documents on record.
9. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. Both the applicants were recruited/engaged as Casual Floor Assistants in the year 1988 and 1989 respectively. They have been working as such uninterruptedly at the time of their initial engagement, they possessed all the prescribed eligibility criteria for holding these positions, even though on a casual basis. The department itself brought out a Scheme for regularization of casual 10 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 artists/employees in the year 1992 and 1994, and except for not meeting the criterion of prescribed age limit, there was no other obstacle for regularization of the applicants under the said Scheme. However, the name of the applicants did figure in the initial list of eligible employees but got omitted from the final list vide which similarly placed artists/employees were regularized. Even after this exercise of regularization, the Director General of Doordarshan was again approached by Sr. Administrative Officer on behalf of Additional Director General (P), recommending the names of the applicants for regularization, clearly stating that they are eligible for this regularization. However, it was again held by the concerned authority that "since both of them were overage as per the Regularization Scheme of 1992 and 1994, their names have not been considered for regularization" and it was further held that they continue to be ineligible for such a regularization. We fail to understand as to how a person, who at the time of retirement, satisfies all the criteria of eligibility, including the eligibility with respect to the prescribed age limit, could be rendered ineligible only because he has become overage 4 to 11 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 6 years after his initial recruitment. Does it not defy the logic to ignore the fact that the persons would also grow in age during these years. Moreover, the period by which they become overage is minuscule. The order of regularizing 233 employees was issued on 06/08.05.2015. At that juncture, the applicant no.1 had put in uninterrupted service as a casual employee for nearly 27 years, whereas the applicant no.2 had put in service of 26 years. Now, they are at the verge of attaining the age of superannuation and are being denied the benefit extended to a large number of similarly placed casual employees on a single ground of their not meeting the prescribed age limit at the time of the Scheme for regularization. We cannot accept this contention at all.
10. We have no doubt in our minds that the eligibility of the applicants under all the parameters, especially so of the prescribed age limit, would be with reference to the date of their initial engagement. It is nowhere disputed that there was any irregularity in their initial engagement, even though it was on a casual basis. 12 OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12 Moreover, it has nowhere been contested that some employees, who are elder to the present applicants, have obtained the benefit of Scheme for regularization. Therefore, it does give indication that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the applicants, although it may not have been deliberate.
11. In view of the situation as has emerged and detailed above, we allow the present Original Application and direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to forthwith issue orders of regularization of the applicants w.e.f. 06/08.05.2015, i.e. the date on which the order for regularization of 233 Casual Artists/employees under Regularization Scheme of 1992 and 1994 was issued.
12. It is needless to say that the applicants will be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which shall accrue as a result of their regularization w.e.f. 06/08.05.2015. However, these benefits shall be extended to them on notional basis and they shall not lay claim to any retrospective financial benefits.
13OA No. 2074/2015 Item No.12
13. The OA stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
(Tarun Shridhar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/