Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Mrs Jayanti Ahuja vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 1 April, 2022
1
OA No. 281/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 281/2014
Order reserved on 29.03.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Mrs. Jayanti Ahuja, aged about 51 years, wife of
Shri Manohar, Resident of 62/206, Rajat Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
2. Rupendra Kumar Saxena, aged about 51 years,
son of Shri Jayanti Prasad Saxena, Resident of
52/647, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Jai Prakash Sharma, aged about 50 years, son of
Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Resident of D-34/A,
Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
....Applicants
Shri Prahlad Singh, counsel for applicants.
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Prasar Bharti, Bhartiya
Prasaran Nigam, Doordarshan Kendra, Mandi
House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jhalana
Doongari, Jaipur.
.... Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
2
OA No. 281/2014
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) This Original Application may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction the rejection of the candidature of the applicants for regularization under the Schemes of 1992 and 1994 may kindly be declared to be illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicants on the post of L.D.C. from the dates persons junior to the applicants have been regularized with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants.
(iii) Costs of this Original Application may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicants."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are that they were appointed as Casual General Assistants in the office of the respondent no. 3 i.e. Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur, with effect from the dates shown against their names, which are as under:-
3OA No. 281/2014
"(1). Smt. Jayanti Ahuja 18.09.1987 (2). Rupendra Kumar Saxena 15.10.1987 (3). Jai Prakash Sharma 25.07.1987."
As per judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in group of matters, (OA No. 894/1990, OA No. 2322/1990 and OA No. 1775/1990), decided on 08.02.1991, respondents framed a scheme for regularization of casual employees in Doordarshan Kendra and the said scheme was circulated by Memorandum dated 09.06.1992 (Annexure A/1) and further guidelines to implement this scheme were issued on 10.06.1992. Thereafter, further relaxations were provided in subsequent scheme issued on 17.03.1994 (Annexure A/2). After their appointments, they were assigned duties regularly and were in panel for regularization. On 10.09.1994, an eligibility list for regularization was prepared as per Recruitment Rules, which existed in the year 1987, wherein the age limit for recruitment was 21 to 30 years. In the eligibility list, names of applicants appeared at Sl. nos. 7, 9 and
11. Again in the year 2000, in the list of casual General Assistants, names of applicants were appeared at Sl. nos. 5, 7 and 9. Applicants made several representations to respondents for 4 OA No. 281/2014 regularization of their services as General Assistants as services of juniors appointed later were regularized. All of a sudden, respondent no. 3 passed orders rejecting their claim for regularization on the ground of overage. As per Govt. of India, Memorandum dated 29.01.1966 modified on 04.07.1983 as well as OM dated 24.10.1985, provided age relaxation upto the age of 35 years for departmental working candidates. The Govt. of India's scheme of 1988 modified in 1993, provided for regularization irrespective of age. Due to rejection of their claim, applicants had approached this Bench of the Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 103/2004 (Rupendra Kumar Saxena vs. UOI & Ors.), OA No. 104/2004 (Jai Prakash Sharma vs. UOI & Ors.) and OA No. 169/2004 (Jayanti Ahuja vs. UOI & Ors.). The said OAs were dismissed by a common order dated 02.03.2007 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The respondents have regularized services of juniors from the same list on the post of LDC on the basis of regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994 and in compliance of order dated 02.11.2005 (Annexure A/15). Also by order dated 16.07.2008 (Annexure A/20), respondent 5 OA No. 281/2014 no. 2 regularized services of 8 casual General Assistants on the post of LDC, 3 of whom were junior to the applicants. The said order of this Tribunal dated 02.03.2007 was challenged by the applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by way of filing DBCWP No. 1235/2008 (Jai Prakash Sharma vs. UOI & Ors.), DBCWP No. 1236/2008 (Rupendra Kumar Saxena vs. UOI & Ors.) and DBCWP No. 10018/2008 (Mrs. Jayanti Ahuja vs. UOI & Ors.) and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan vide its order dated 03.03.2014 disposed of the said Writ Petitions on the ground that subsequent developments have taken place in 2012 for consideration of candidatures of persons for regularization, gave a fresh cause of action to the applicants and as these developments were not before the Tribunal while deciding the OAs, therefore, applicants vide order dated 03.03.2014 were given liberty to file fresh OAs before this Tribunal and the same to be decided on merits in accordance with law. Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, applicants have approached this Tribunal for regularization of their services on the post of LDC from the dates persons junior to the applicants have been regularized.
6OA No. 281/2014
3. After issue of notices, respondents have filed their reply raising preliminary objection that since no orders are challenged and the Screening Committee have held the applicants as ineligible for regularization, their earlier OAs were decided by this Tribunal on merit. Hence, the present O.A. is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Respondents further stated that they have already taken into consideration the entire material and policy as framed by the Govt. of India for regularization of services of the casual General Assistants where certain procedures and norms have been settled by the Government for considering their cases for regularization. But as the applicants did not fulfil the very conditions required for their regularization, the Screening Committee has considered their experience and age after giving relaxation but the Screening Committee has found them overage. Hence, they were declared ineligible and, thus, have no case to claim benefit of regularization. In continuity of earlier action, a fresh notified scheme was published by respondents on 15.11.2012 under the scheme of regularization of 1992 and 1994 and applications were invited from casual artists for regularization. Accordingly, applicants had also submitted their applications and at 7 OA No. 281/2014 crucial stage each of them were considered and they were found to be over age and, hence, their applications were rejected. It is further stated that applicants were never recruited to the post of General Assistant as claimed by them, but they were engaged/empanelled as casual booking on rotation basis subject to the availability of work. Respondents agreed that an eligibility list of casual General Assistants for regularization was drawn by respondent no. 3 on 10.09.1994 after the relaxed regularization scheme of 17.03.1994 by considering age limit as 21- 30 years. As per the criteria stipulated in the scheme of regularization dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994, the review was conducted and in the said review, it was revealed that the applicants along with some other candidates do not fulfil the criteria of age i.e. 18-25 years and they were found overage as per the scheme of regularization and they were rightly declared as ineligible. As far as the case of juniors being regularized is concerned, it is to state that since the names of the applicants did not figure in the eligibility list of casual General Assistants at Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur, so if Juniors are within age they have been rightly regularized. Though applicants challenged the order of CAT before the 8 OA No. 281/2014 Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, merely because subsequent notification has been issued in continuity of the earlier scheme prepared by Govt. of India, the present O.A. has no force and deserves to be rejected. Also the action of respondents is legal and in accordance with rules and also there is no question of discrimination.
4. Applicants have filed rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents. It was further stated that the present O.A. has been filed as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan dated 03.03.2014 wherein liberty was granted to the applicants, thus, they have rightly approached this Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that fresh cause of action has arisen for the applicants for filing another O.A. The challenge is to the result of the Screening Committee holding the applicants ineligible for regularization, therefore, applicants are justified in filing present O.A. It is incorrect to state that the applicants do not fulfil the requirement of the regularization or that they are overage. The applicants fulfil the criteria of 120 days of actual casual booking and, thus, they are entitled for regularization. 9 OA No. 281/2014
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties.
6. The applicants as well as the respondents have reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
7. The question which requires consideration is that whether as per Notification dated 15.11.2012, the candidature of the applicants can be reconsidered for regularization.
8. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants who was working as casual General Assistants were working from different dates since 1987 and their names were placed in the eligibility list prepared by respondents dated 10.09.1994 as well as in the list of 2000. Continuous representations were made by the applicants for regularization of their services as General Assistants but the respondents rejected their claims stating that they were ineligible on ground of overage. It is the claim of the applicants that as per Government of India's OM dated 24.10.1985, there is relaxation of Upper Age limit for departmental candidate for appointment to Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts and the said upper age limit is relaxable upto 35 10 OA No. 281/2014 years. Thus, the said OM can be made applicable in their cases and their services can be regularized. The applicants state that as per Regularization Scheme of Doordarshan of 1992 and 1994, they are fully eligible and, thus, their services are required to be regularized.
9. As observed by us that the applicants had earlier filed OA Nos. 103/2004, 104/2004 and 169/2004 seeking regularization of their services and all these OAs were dismissed vide common order dated 02.03.2007 and, thereafter, they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by way of filing DBCWP No. 1235/2008, DBCWP No. 1236/2008 and DBCWP No. 10018/2008 and they pointed before the Hon'ble High Court that the respondents have published a Notification dated 15.11.2012 under the Scheme for regularization 1992-1994 and applications are invited from casual artist for regularization and they have also applied as per the said notification. The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 03.03.2014 observed that the same gives a fresh cause of action and thus liberty was granted by Hon'ble High Court to them to approach the Tribunal, which was to be decided on its merits in 11 OA No. 281/2014 accordance with law and earlier order decided by Tribunal may not in any manner adversely affect the rights of the parties.
10. We have gone through the Notification dated 15.11.2012 under the scheme for regularization 1992- 1994 and applications were invited from casual artist for regularization and applicants had applied for the same but their applications were rejected since on the crucial date for reckoning age under the scheme was 09.06.1992 and each of the present applicants were overage and, thus, the Screening Committee has found them ineligible despite fulfilling other eligibility criteria.
11. Coming to the grounds raised by the applicants that as per the Notification of 2012 inviting applications for regularization of those who had completed 120 days in any calendar year prior to 31.12.1991 and as applicants have acquired the right of consideration and regularization under the Scheme of 1992 and 1994, cannot be accepted for the reason that the services can be regularized on fulfilment of all the required conditions. Merely because applicants are working for a number of years cannot suffice. Thus, it is clear that no right is vested or accrued to the 12 OA No. 281/2014 applicants for regularization merely applying on the basis of the said notification. When the Screening Committee in spite of considering them as per the said notification have found them overage and have found the applicants ineligible, then the action of respondents cannot be disputed.
12. As far as reliefs claimed by the applicants is seen, it is clear that their basic prayer is for regularization under the Schemes of 1992 and 1994 as well as for regularizing their services since persons junior to them have been regularized. As seen, the cases of the applicants were considered by the respondents as per the Notification dated 15.11.2012 but the Screening Committee has rejected their cases being overage as on the cut-off date and they were found ineligible for regularization. On the other hand, there are several instances shown by the applicants that persons who are junior and over-aged also their services have been regularized. Thus, respondents cannot adopt different policy / criteria for regularizing services of the applicants.
13. We feel that the respondents can reconsider the cases of the applicants as per the Notification dated 15.11.2012 as to whether the applicants fulfil the 13 OA No. 281/2014 criteria of 120 days in any calendar year prior to 31.12.1991 and also consider the cases of the applicants for relaxation of upper age limit as per Government of India's OM dated 24.10.1985, which provides the upper age limit relaxable upto the age of 35 years in respect of departmental working candidates for appointment to Group 'C' and D' posts.
14. With the observations made herein-above, the respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the applicants for regularization under the Scheme of 1992-1994 as per Notification dated 15.11.2012 as to whether the applicants fulfil the criteria of 120 days in any calendar year prior to 31.12.1991 and also consider the cases of the applicants for relaxation of upper age limit as per Government of India's said OM dated 24.10.1985 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by way of passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the applicants. The Original Application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/