Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Raja Rao vs M/O I & B on 17 March, 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH;HYDERANAD. c-
C.P.No.0 20t004712014 in OAI20t806t2011
HYDERABAD, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF IVARCH,2O2O
Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)
Palaka Raja Rao (R.R. Palaka),
S/o. Palaka Asiruyad, age 61 years,
Occ: Dy Director (Retd.),
All lndia Radio, Hyderabad.
Petitioner
(By Advocate: tVIr. K. Sudhaker Reddy)
Vs.
1 Union of lndia rep. by its
Secretary,
Ministry of lnformation & Broadcasting,
A.G.C.R. Building,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
AII lndia Radio, Akashavani Bhavan,
Paliament Street,
New Delhi - 110 011.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: lMr. A. Radhakrishna, Sr. PC to CG)
lcP 147 12074\
ORDER(ORAL)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY' CHAIRMAN.
The applicant joined the service of the All lndia Radio as Programme Executive in the year 1980. ln the year 1993, he was promoted to the post of ffiD
-.\:Nlt1,/-.
Assistant Station Director.
2.. There is a long standing dispute between the Programme Directors on the one hand and Staff Artists on the other hand. Both the categories are working in the All lndia Radio and Door Darshan. Programme Assistants alone used to be part of the cadre structure in the Organisation and Staff Artists were being engaged on contract and routine basis. Somewhere in the year 1990, rules were amended providing for regularisation of the services of the Staff Artists subject to certain conditions. They were required to appear in the test conducted by the U.P.S.C. and on being declared successful, they were entitled to be regularised It so happened that while some Staff Artists appeared in the test, others did not appear. Even among the Staff Artists, who appeared in the test, only few of them were successful in the process.
3.. Administration of Prasar Bharathi has regularised the services of the Staff Artists with effect from the date on which they were initially engaged. That has virtually dealt a serious blow to the Programme Assistants and all of them became juniors to the Staff Artists. None of the Programme Assistants were getting promotions, and Staff Artists alone were getting promotions on account of the notional seniority. The matter ultimately went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in one of the proceedings, the promotions that have taken place upto the date of order, were permitted to be continued. As of now, directions were issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to examine the feasibility of effecting the promotion of Programme Executives, against the available vacancies /*?
Page 2 of 5(cP/ 47 /2oL4l E 4 The applicant was promoted as Assistant D irector in 1993 and later on promoted as station Director in 2004. He retired in that post in 2012. He did not have any specific grievance about the promotions or the effective date thereof.
However, in the right of the order passed by the Hon'bre Jammu & Kashmir High court, wherein certain directions were issued to the upsc for conducting review DPC and the resurtant proceedings of the review Dpc, appricant fired o.A.No.806/20'1 1 claiming relief of implementation of the panels prepared by the UPSC in the Review DPC held on 06.02.2002. That o.A. was disposed of along with o.A.No.8 1212011 directing the implementation of recommendations of the UPSC, based on the proceedings of DPC held on 06.02.2002. Appticant fited C.P.No.4712014 alleging that the respondents did not implement the same. The C. P. was closed taking on record, the representation made by the respondents that the Order of this Tribunal has been implemented.
5.. Applicant filed Writ Petition No.5547/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court stating that the Tribunal has closed the Contempt Petitron without ensuring proper compliance. The Hon'ble High Court, in its order daled 25.02.2016, observed that the Tribunal did not undertake elaborate discussion as regards the compliance and accordingly, remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
6.. We heard Sri K.Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents
7.. As observed earlier, the applicant did not have any grievance as such and that he was promoted way back in 1993 as Assistant Station Director. The basis for him to file the O.A. was the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The direction issued by the Tribunal in the O.A. reads as under:
'13.. ln the presenl case a/so, the delay by the depaftment for the DPC will not come in the way. The applicants have also produced a copy of the panel for years 1989 and 1990, which shows that Page 3 of 5 lcPl47lzot4l Shri Palaka Raia Rao and Kum./Smt.Vedavathi are at serial nos. 30 (1990 panel) and 37 (1989 panel) respectively. ln our view, the Order of the Apex Courl in Union of lndia & Others Vs. Satish Chandra Mathur does not apply to thls case. ln that case, the only issue was that the Programme Executives, who we're appointed on adhoc basis, had claimed that their seniority shoutd be counted from the date they were appointed as adhoc, but the Hon'ble Apex Courl held that the seniority in the cadre of Programme executives should be counted only from 1.1.1979, which was the date of regularisation and not for the adhoc period. The present case, however, arlses out of a review DPC conducted by the UPSC in which the DPC put the applicants in the panel year 1990 and 1989 respectively and therefore there was a process followed and it was the recommendation of the DPC, which was also affirmed in the meeting on 19.08.2010 by the Ministry officials that these recommendations have been implemented. Moreover, the iunior Sml.
Deepachandra has been promoted right up to DDG level. Therefore, based on these facts and Hon'ble Supreme Coutt judgement in R.Balasubramanian's case (supra) the respondents are directed to give effect to the UPSC recommendations in the DPC held on 6.2.2002 in which the applicants herein are included in the revised year wise panels for promotion to the grade of Assislanl Station Director for the year 1989 and 1990 and to extend all the consequential benefits to the applicants such as promotion to the post of ASD, SD, Se/ GR.SD and DDG retrospectively with effect from the date on which applicants irnmediate junior was promoted subject to they otherwise being eligible
14. The OAs are disposed of accordingly No cosfs. "
The gist of direction was that recommendations of the UPSC be implemented.
8.. ln the recommendations of the UPSC, name of the applicant figured at Sl.No.30 in the Panel for the year 1990. lt is not known as to how many persons included in the Panel were promoted. The applicant can have grievance, only when anyone in the Panel was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Director earlier to 1993. The only person, who figured after the applicant, at Sl.No.31 is Swamy B.S.Rao (SC) and he was promoted as Assistant Station Director on 21 .04.2014. He is said to have been promoted to the post of STS Grade with effect from € Page 4 of 5
-J (cP /47 / 2oL4l \.-
28.01.2004 Therefore, the responde n S promo ted the applicant on 28.01 .2004. The respondents issued an order dated 02.03.20.15 which reads as u nder:
ln pursuance of Ministry of lnformation & "
-
B_roadcasting's communication ttlo lSOt S1OSIZO| 1_BAp Part - 1, dated 26.02.2015 towards implementatii of lrlel.ot 191'ile CAT, Hyderabad dated so.O7.2oi3, in O.A.No. 806 of 201 1 and OA No.812 of 201 1 fited by Sh.P.Raja Rao & Ms.p.Vedavathi both retired Station Directors of IBPS, lhe case of notional promotion of Sh.P.Raja Rao, Retd. Station Director to SfS grade of l!(P) lyla Radio (Programme Management Cadie) of lB S has been considered. Slnce hls immediate junior Sh.B.S-Rao was prontoted to STS grade w.e.f. 2^8.01 .2004 against the panel for the year-1997_98 and Sh.P Raja Rao was also promoted to STS grade from the same date against the same panel, there is no ,!rg!5" in the date of promotion oi Sh.p.Ra1a Rao to SfS grade of All lndia Radio (programme Management Cadre) of lB (P) S. Ihls ORDER will be subject to the outcome of SLP (CA No.4387/2007) fited by Association of rJpSC Recruited Programme Officers of AtR & Doordarshan (AUPO) vs. UOI ancl others in the Supreme Court of lndia."
9.. The applicant is not able to point out any factual or legal error in the sard order. Therefore mere inclusion in the panel of .1gg0, does not clothe the applicant with any right to be promoted in that year itself Much would depend upon the availability of the vacancy. lt can be stated that there was any non-compliance on the part of the respondents.
10.. C.P. is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs qenftra sria CEBrlFIED Ti?UE COPY t* d-€sr ,41 d,o4 Pobf mrr CASE NUMBEF Hufo ;51 o-r1r, DATE OF .JUOC I'TIE ;);2a)a cfr dlt{' r '!i-,rn -r:ir l, COPY I,,IA,E F ;in..l.o--1-.r or o ll lr* h "Free Copy I Urri .:: ll CAT (Procedure) Fules"
Pai ? 5 of 5