Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mormukut Sharma vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 10 November, 2022
1
Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1466/2017
This the 10th day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
1. Mormukut Sharma
Age - 33, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Bhoj Raj Sharma
R/o H. No. 861/1, Railway Road
Near FCI Godown Palwal (Haryana)
2. Raj Kumar, Age-46 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Late Ram Ji Lal
R/o G-II-81, Madangiri, Delhi-110062.
3. Manoj Chopra
Age-43, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Satish Chopra
R/o 3/230, Subhash Nagar
New Delhi-110027.
4. Vinod Kumar Ojha
Age-41 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Raj Kishore Ojha
R/o H. No. J-2, Type-2,
Palika Niketan R. K. Puram,
New Delhi-110022.
5. Sunny Kalra
Age 46, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Ajit Kalra,
R/o 51, IInd Floor, West Guru Angad Nagar
Gali No. 7, Delhi-92.
6. Sunil Kumar,
Age 41, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Harsh Lal
R/o. 20/21, J.J. Colony,
2
Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017
Dakshin Puri
New Delhi-110062.
7. Vimlesh Kumar
Age 35, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Phool Chand
R/o G-172, Gali No. 7, Mohan Baba Nagar
Badarpur South Delhi-44.
8. Anand Kashyap
Age 37, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal
H. No. 472-A, Street NO. 9 SBS Colony,
Karawal Nagar Delhi-90.
9. Rajinder Joshi
Age - 37, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o. V. P. Joshi,
R/o. 261/A, Gali Nagar 8, Lakhpat Colony Part-I,
Meetapur Extn. Badarpur,
Delhi-44.
10. Sourabh
Age - 26, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Late Sh. Subhash Bakshi
H. No. 115, A/83,
Tihar Village New Delhi-110018.
11. Praveen Sharma
Age - 40, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Prem Prakash
R/o H. No. 198, Bombauwali Gali
Old Subji Mandi, Bahapurgarh
Distrit Jharjhar (Haryana)
12. Pramod Kumar
Age - 33, Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Mod. Chand
R/o 8802, IInd Floor, Multani Danda Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055.
3
Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017
13. Kesav Prasad
Age 37 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Ram Prit Prasad
R/o 219/A, C-Block, Jai Vihar Najafgarh
New Delhi-110043.
14. Mukesh Kumar
Age 44 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Gopi Ram
R/o H.No. 643, Khera Khurd Delhi-110082.
15. Sriniwas Singh Nagar
Age 42 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh
R/o Village Semorpur Part Dankar Distt G.B. Nagar.
16. Jagdev Singh
Age 31 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh
R/o C/25, Indra Park, Near M.I.D. School Anoop
Nagar, Uttam Nagar New Delhi-110059.
17. Kamlesh Kumar
Age 34 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Jai Chand
R/o A-207, New Lahore Colony Shashtri Nagar
Delhi-31.
18. Sunil Singh Rana
Age - 32 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Late Manmohan Singh Rana
R/o 26/313, P.K. Road Mandir Marg
New Delhi-110001.
19. Vicky Rajput
Age - 34 Designation - Lighting Assistant
S/o Sh. Prabhat Kumar
R/o H. No. 1200, Gali Somsan Farsha Khana
Delhi-110006. ...Applicants
(None for applicants)
4
Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017
Versus
1. Director General
Doordarshan
Doordarshan Bhawan,
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti
Doordarshan, New Delhi. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Radhalakshmi R.)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) In the present OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs :
"(i) Direct the respondents to place on record the Scheme framed by them for regularization of the services of the Lighting Assistants in the respondents department and further the respondents may also be directed to place the details of the employees who have been regularized w.e.f. 1992 to 2016 at different stations of Doordarshan Kendra.
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the services of the applicants for regularization (Lighting Assistant), in terms of policy framed by them and amended time to time so far.
(iii) Without prejudice to the generality of the prayer clause (i)&(ii) of the preceding paras, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 18.11.2016 of the 5 Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 applicants for regularization of their services in the respondents department.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed on different posts under the respondents-
Doordarshan and same procedure as is adopted for regular appointment was followed for their appointment also. It is further stated that 226 casual artists at Doordarshan has been regularised under the 1992/1994 Scheme. However, the benefit of the said scheme has not been given to the applicants. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularising the applicants, they have approached this Tribunal seeking regularisation.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents who filed reply opposing the OA stating therein that the applicants are contractual engages engaged by the respondents and put emphasis upon paras 1, 2, 3, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.19 of their reply. For the sake of clarity, the said paras read as under :-
"1. At the outset it is submitted that the OA is misconceived and untenable. The Applicants 6 Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 are contractual engages engaged by the Respondents initially through Broadcasting Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL). Applicants are seeking regularisation in terms of the Regularisation Scheme of 1992 and 1994. The said claim of the Applicants is untenable in as much as the Applicants are contractual engagees whereas the scheme that is being referred to deals with regularisation of Casual Staff Artists working in Prasar Bharati prior to 31.12.1991. Admittedly, the applicants were engaged between the years 2000 and 2007 and therefore are not eligible for regularisation thereunder.
2. The Applicants were engaged as Lighting Assistants on contractual basis between the years 2000 to 2007 through Broadcast Engineering Consultants (India) 19 Limited (BECIL). Thereafter, the Respondents directly engaged them on contractual basis and voluntarily the Applicants have been signing contracts from time to time with the Respondents. The contractual engagements of the Applicants were renewed as late as on 20.8.2015 for a period of two years.
3 It is well settled that the contractual engagees are not entitled to claim regularisation. Even assuming that the said right is there, however the Applicants cannot claim any right under the Regularisation Scheme of 1992 and 1994 as the said scheme is meant for Casual Staff Artists working in Prasar Bharati. It is also pertinent to state that the said scheme was in operation for a limited period and are meant for casual staff artists working with the Respondents prior to 31.12.1991. Persons who were engaged after 31.12.1991 are not eligible for regularisation under the said scheme.
4.2 In reply to para 4.2 it is submitted that a scheme for regularisation of Casual Staff Artists was framed in 1992. The said scheme was amended in 1994 and 1997. Under the said scheme Casual Staff Artists who had 7 Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 been engaged for 120 days in a calendar year prior to 31.12.1991 were eligible. Admittedly the Applicants were engaged between the periods 2000 to 2007. The Applicants are referring to persons who were eligible under the 1992 Scheme.
4.5 The contents of para 4.5 to the extent it relates to Office Memorandum dated 9.3.2005 are a matter of record. The persons referred to therein were regularised in terms of the 1992 Scheme as amended in 1994. However, it is reiterated that for any scheme of regularisation of Casual Staff Artists under the Regularisation Scheme it is a pre condition that the Casual Artists should have completed 120 days of work in a calendar year prior to 31.12.1991. By an order dated 18.7.2013 it was stated that after regularisation of 226 Casual Staff Artists, the scheme would be closed and no further regularisation would be considered under the scheme.
4.6 In reply to para 4.6 it is submitted that the Applicants were appointed as casual engagees not against any regular post and in fact the Applicants were engaged through BECIL and were not appointed by Prasar Bharati. It is denied that the Applicants were appointed against different posts in Doordarshan, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting after adopting the same procedure as is adopted for making regular appointment. It is denied that the Applicants are eligible for appointment to the regular posts.
4.7 In reply to para 4.7 it is submitted that the Applicants were engaged on contractual basis as Lighting Assistants upto 31.3.2005 and thereafter their contracts were extended from time to time. On the basis of a comprehensive performance appraisal of the Applicants, the Respondents offered the engagement of the Applicants as Lighting Assistants on full time contract basis for a period of two years w.e.f. 1.8.2015 with 8 Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 remuneration of Rs. 25,000/- per month vide letter dated 20.8.2015. The Applicants accepted the same and signed the Agreement dated 27.8.2015. A perusal of the terms and conditions of the contract clearly shows that they were engaged on completely different set of terms and conditions and that the Applicants cannot claim any parity with the Casual Staff Artists engaged prior to 31.12.1991 who are a separate class amongst themselves.
4.11 In reply to para 11 it is submitted that the Casual Staff Artists who were engaged on casual basis upto 31.12.1991 were eligible for consideration under the scheme for regularisation in accordance with the Regularisation Scheme of 1992 and 1994 and the Casual Staff Artists who were regularised possessed the requisite qualifications and experience as stipulated in the Rules.
4.12 In reply to para 4.12 it is submitted that on the basis of the recommendation received from Screening Committee constituted at Kendra level and further recommendations by the Screening Committee constituted at Directorate, the approval of competent Authority was conveyed to Heads of Doordarshan Kendras vide DG: Doordarshan letter dated 6.5.2015. The regularisation was done as a special drive against the vacancies available at different Kendras all over India basis. This drive was made for Casual Staff Artists and working at various Kendras and was in terms of the 1992 Regularisation Scheme.
4.19 In reply to para 4.19 it is submitted that the representations of the Applicants cannot be considered as they are contractual engagees. The Applicants do not hold regular posts and their mode of recruitment was not as per the mode adopted for regular recruitment. They are not entitled to seek regularisation."
9Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 4. Today, none appeared for the applicants. Heard learned counsel for respondents, gone through the
pleadings on record and appreciated the legal position.
5. The short question before this Tribunal is whether the applicants are entitled for regularisation or not ?
6. This issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India & Ors.
Vs. Anshul Sharma & Ors. in C.W.P. No. 319/2001 and batch. The relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-
"Having regard to the rule of precedent, the Court is bound to follow a three-judge Bench decision in preference to a two-Judge Bench decision. (see S. H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka & Anr. with Khathum Bi v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 538 and Ram Bilas Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 AIR SCIV 93).
In any event, as noticed hereinabove, in the instant case, the scheme of regularisation has no application at all. Neither this Court nor the Tribunal can direct the respondents to frame a scheme of regularisation. Such direction, as has been discussed hereinbefore, would be contrary to the provisions contained in Article 309 of the Constitution. It is trite that the Court cannot issue a direction, which would be contrary to law as also the Constitution.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.10
Item No. 9 (C-3) OA No. 1466/2017 These writ petitions are allowed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, there shall be no orders as to costs."
7. Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Anshul Sharma & Ors. (supra) mentioned herein above, it is felt that this Tribunal is bound by the judgment so passed by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of that, the present OA lacks merit. The same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Kalia) Member (J) /Mbt/