Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gautam Dev Sharma S/O Sh. D.K.Sharma vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 14 February, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. 060/00020/2017 Chandigarh, this the 14th day of February, 2017 CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) & HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA,MEMBER(A) Gautam Dev Sharma S/o Sh. D.K.Sharma, aged 59 years, working as Part Time Correspondent in District Headquarters, Kurukshetra, All India Radio/D.D. News, r/o House No. 663, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra (Haryana) (Group- C). .APPLICANT (Argued by: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shshtri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Chairman, Prasar Bharti, PTI Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 3. Director General, News Services Division, All India Radio, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 4. Station Director, All India Radio (Prasar Bharti), Sector-34, Chandigarh-160022. . RESPONDENTS ORDER (Oral)
JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) The challenge in this Original Application (OA), filed by applicant, Gautam Dev Sharma son of Sh. D.K. Sharma, a Part Time Correspondent in All India Radio/D.D. News, is to the impugned letter / order dated 22/23.12.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby his request for extension of period of contract beyond 60 years of age, has been rejected by the Competent Authority.
2. The compendium of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant OA, and exposited from the record, is that initially the applicant was appointed as a Part-Time Correspondent (for short PTC) for one month only w.e.f. 1.7.2004 to 31.7.2004, and he has executed and signed the agreement, undertaking to comply with the terms and conditions contained therein, vide letters dated 4.6.2004 (Annexure A-4) and 29.7.2004 (Annexure A-5). The period of his contract was extended from time to time, lastly it was extended w.e.f. 1.4.2016 to 31.1.2017, vide letter dated 2.5.2016 (Annexure A-8/A). After the expiry of period of renewed contract, and after attaining the age of 60 years, the applicant was disengaged from service. His representations dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure A-10) and 23.12.2016 (Annexure A-11) to work beyond the age of 60 years, were rejected vide impugned order dated 22/23.12.2016 (Annexure A-1), by the Competent Authority.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, challenging the impugned order, Annexure A-1, on the following grounds:-
(a) That the impugned letter dated 23.12.2016 (A-1) is contrary to the provisions of the Policy of 2005, wherein in para C (vi) thereof, it has been clearly mentioned that the person retired from the service can be engaged beyond the age of 60 years, provided they are found fit and in para III of the Policy of 2005 it has been mentioned that the Contract of Part Time correspondent will be continued on half yearly basis upto the age of 60 years subject to satisfactory performance. The renewal of contract beyond 60 years, upto the age will, however, be subject to production of a certificate of physical fitness from the Competent Authority and would be further be subject to scrutiny by the competent authority at headquarters.
(b) That the applicant is physically fit as is evident from the medical certificate and in view of the provisions of the Policy of 2005, the applicant is entitled to continue beyond the age of 60 years of service. The action of the respondents denying extension of service beyond 60 years of service is illegal and arbitrary. It is not the case of the respondents that the work and conduct of the applicant is not satisfactory or he is not physically fit.
(c) That the subsequent policy or guidelines relied by the respondents are not applicable in the present case. Even the respondents have not given the dates of the revised guidelines no they have annexed any copy of the Guidelines. The case of the applicant is supported by the policy of 2005. Moreover, subsequent guidelines have no retrospective application in the case of the applicant.
(d) That the applicant was engaged by the respondent by positive act of selection and he has been continuously working with the respondents, without any break to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. Thus, the impugned letter dated 23.12.2016 issued by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary.
(e) That it is not the case of the respondents that the applicant is not performing his duties properly or he is not physically fit.
(f) That the applicant submitted another representation on 23.12.2016 along with medical certificate but the same has remained without any response.
4. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to challenge the impugned order (Annexure A-1), in the manner, indicated hereinabove.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view that there is no merit and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned herein below.
6. As is evident from the record, that the applicant is not a regular employee. He was working as a PTC of All India Radio, on contract basis, for a fixed period. He was never appointed, on a regular civil post, at any time. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has utterly failed to indicate that the service of the applicant as PTC in All India Radio, is a post belonging to any All India Services, or any Civil Service or a Civil post under the Central Government, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as contemplated under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
7. Moreover, now adverting to the merits of the case, it is not a matter of dispute, that the applicant was initially engaged for one month w.e.f. 1.7.2004 to 31.7.2004, as a PTC in All India Radio, vide orders, Annexures A-4 and A-5. He has duly signed an agreement and undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein. The period of his engagement was lastly extended till 31.1.2017. The representations, Annexures A-10 and A-11, filed by the applicant, to work beyond the age of 60 years, were rejected vide impugned order, Annexure A-1, by the Competent Authority, which in substance, is as under :-
Sub : Extension of contract beyond 60 years of PTCs.
Reference your application dated 15.10.2016 received in this office on 19.12.2016 on the subject cited above.
There is no provision in the Revised Policy for Engagement of PTCs of Prasar Bharati for extension of PTCs contract beyond 60 years. Therefore, it is not possible to extend your contract beyond 31.1.2017.
8. Meaning thereby, the services of the applicant were dis-continued by a simplicitor order, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, it has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order, that there is no provision in the revised policy for engagement of PTC beyond the age of 60 years. Thus, the Competent Authority has recorded the valid reasons in this regard. The learned counsel for the applicant, has miserably failed to urge as to how and in what manner, the applicant is entitled for engagement, beyond the age of 60 years and, which terms and conditions of the agreement, between the parties, was violated. In the absence of the same, to our mind, no relief can be granted to the applicant, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. Therefore, thus seen from any angle, as there is no merit, so the instant OA is hereby dismissed as such, with no order as to costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 14.02.2017
HC*
1
(OA No. 060/00020/2017)