Patna High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Shri S.S.Rahman & Ors on 12 May, 2010
Author: Kishore K. Mandal
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Katriar, Kishore Kumar Mandal
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6605 OF 2007
******
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
******
1. UNION OF INDIA, through Secretary, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting
Corporation of India, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi.
..... Petitioners.
Versus
1. SHRI S.S. RAHMAN, S/o Late Abdul Jafeej, C/o Professor
Mazahar Hussani Sahab, 6/202, Dargah Mualla, Aajmer
(Rajasthan) at present Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra,
Muzaffarpur, P.O. and District- Muzaffarpur.
...... Respondent 1st Set.
2. Smt. S.B. Kalra, Director, C/o Chief Executive Officer, Prasar
Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Usha Bhasin, Chief Producer, C/o Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
4. Sri V.A. Magazine, Chief Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
5. Sri B. Chakravorty, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
6. Shri L.K. Chopra, Chief Producer, C/o Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
7. Shri S.P. Sexena, Chief Producer, C/o Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
8. Ms. Ananaya Banerjee, Chief Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
9. Sri V.S. Pansaro, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
10. Sri A. Das Gupta, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
11. Sri Mukesh Sharma, Deputy Director, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
2
12. Shri A.K. Chakravorty, Station Director, C/o Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
13. Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur, Director, C/o Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
14. Shri A.M. Sakat, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
15.Shri E.S. Issac, Executive Director, C/o Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New Delhi.
16. Shri H.N. Navrang, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
17. Shri Alok Nath Sen, Executive Producer, C/o Chief Executive
Officer, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, New
Delhi.
...............Respondent 2nd Set.
******
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1: Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
*****
Kishore K. Mandal, J. The Union of India and its functionaries who were
respondents in the original application preferred by respondent no.1
herein assail the order dated 31.8.2005, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short „the
Tribunal‟), in O.A. No.720 of 1998 (S.S. Rahman Vs. Union of
India and others). Respondent no.1 herein preferred the aforesaid
original application seeking quashing of the seniority list
(Annexure-A/1 to the original application), published on 16.5.1995.
The said gradation list was in respect of the employees who were
holding the posts of Station Director (Senior Time Scale). A
3
grievance was raised that the private respondents to the said original
application (respondents 2nd set herein) were given undue
advantage in the matter of fixation of seniority in the said grade.
2. We have perused the original application as well as the
writ application preferred by the petitioners. We are sorry to note
that the pleadings are grossly inadequate as a result of which we
find it difficult to come to a definite finding with reference to the
rules‟ provisions which were in vogue during the relevant time. We
are also mindful of the position that the issue relates to a situation
where for the first time a service cadre was being created in 1990
whereunder all the posts held on contract/regular basis under the
Doordarshan and All India Radio were being assimilated and given
appropriate status carrying a scale of pay. We also take notice of
paragraph 10 of the order passed by the learned Tribunal whereby
the petitioners herein were directed to furnish the relevant
documents/facts concerning the issue enabling the Tribunal to come
to a just and proper conclusion. It appears that in spite of indulgence
shown to the writ petitioners, the documents/details were not
furnished. The Tribunal has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the
materials placed before it and also drew adverse inferences. We
called upon the parties before us to furnish all relevant documents
but they have shown their inability. It is contended on behalf of
both the parties that the matter may be decided with reference to the
4
materials placed before the learned Tribunal, or before this Court by
way of affidavits/counter affidavits.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf petitioners drew
our attention to paragraph-16 of the order passed by the learned
Tribunal which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"16. In view of analysis made above, we are
satisfied that the applicant has made out a case in
his favour. Accordingly, Annexure-A/1 is quashed
and set aside and the respondents are directed to
promote the applicant to Junior Administrative
Grade along with all consequential benefits with
effect from the date the same benefits have been
given to other private respondents within a period of
three months from the date of production/receipt of
this order."
Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly criticised
part of the said direction whereby the authorities were directed to
promote the applicant (respondent no.1 herein) to the next higher
post of Junior Administrative Grade with all consequential benefits.
It is the case of both the parties that relevant rules which governed
the case(s) of the parties as well as the import of Indian
Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter
referred to as the „1990 Rules‟) (effective from 5.11.1990), the
amendment brought therein by reason of a notification dated
7.4.1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), were not properly
addressed to and considered by the learned Tribunal in view of the
position that relevant facts including the Rules (which governed the
5
parties prior to coming into force of the 1990 Rules), were not
placed on record.
4. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone
through the materials on record. We are in agreement with the
learned counsel for the petitioners that normally such a direction is
not issued by the Court/Tribunal. Having recorded certain findings
with reference to the facts and law, the matter is remanded back to
the authorities to decide the claim of the parties in accordance with
the rules/findings. We are not in a position to find from the
impugned order that the relevant facts in the light of the rule &
provisions governing the case(s) of the respondents prior to coming
into force of 1990 Rules and the relevant provisions of 1990 Rules
in the light of the amendment effected in 1994 have been properly
noticed and analysed by the learned Tribunal.
5. Mr. Dixit states that respondent no.1 herein has since
retired from service on 31.5.2007.
6. We dispose of the present writ petition with the
following observations/ directions:
(i) Let respondent no.1 file a detail representation within
two months from today before petitioner no.2 (The
Director General, Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi), raising his grievances.
6
(ii) If such a representation is filed within the
aforesaid time, the Director-General shall consider the
claim of respondent no.1 (S.S. Rahman) and dispose of the
said representation by a speaking order within three
months from the date of filing of such representation and
communicate the same to respondent no.1.
(iii) If the order disposing of the representation finds
that respondent no.1 is entitled to certain reliefs as prayed
in the representation, the same shall be granted to him
within a further period of eight weeks thereafter.
(iv) We make it clear that if the writ petitioner
Director-General feels the necessity of personal hearing of
the respondents including respondent no.1, the same may
also be allowed.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(Kishore K. Mandal, J.)
S.K. Katriar, J.I agree.
(S K Katriar, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th day of May, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR).