Kerala High Court
Kuttan Pillai vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 6TH ASWINA, 1942
OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA NO.180/00866/2015 DATED 10-08-
2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 KUTTAN PILLAI,
AGED 56 YEARS
FLOOR ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVILA
PUTHEN VEEDU, MADANTHACODE, KUZHIMATHICADU,
NELLIMUKKU P.O., KOLLAM 691 509.
2 K.P. MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR,
FLOOR ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043, RESIDING AT T.C. 17/194,
DEEPANJALI, CRA-6, M.K. ROAD, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012.
BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PRASAR BHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA,
MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DOORDARSHAN, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DOORDARSHAN,
DOORDARSHAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.
R1-4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.09.2020, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J The original petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners contended that they were initially engaged as Casual Floor Assistants with effect from 01.09.1988 to March 1990. In between they worked with the respondents for 211 days and 190 days respectively.
But they were not regularised as Floor Assistants. Series of cases came to be filed before the Tribunal, High Court as well as the Apex Court and ultimately both the petitioners were regularised in the year 2013 after giving age relaxation, apparently as a concession.
2. The present original application had been filed, inter alia, seeking for a direction to grant fixation of pay, by stepping up their pay, on par with the pay of one R.Krishnamoorthy, who was appointed and regularised as early as in the year 1992. The petitioners also challenged Annexures-A19 and A20 by which their claim for fixation of pay in par with that of R.Krishnamoorthy had been rejected by the Department concerned. The Tribunal, having considered the OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 3 aforesaid matter, by its order dated 10.08.2018 rejected the claim against which this original petition had been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the factual aspects involved in the matter and the long delay which had occurred in regularising the petitioners would indicate that the petitioners have lost their right to receive pay in tune with the pay that is now drawn by R.Krishnamoorthy. R.Krishnamorrthy was one among the persons who were not regularised by the Department. But later due to an erroneous approach taken by the Department, he had been regularised along with four others. The petitioners also took up a contention that one Mr.G.Sreekumar was also regularised in the year 1998. He was one among the persons, who claimed regularisation along with the petitioners. The petitioners w ere not regularised during the relevant time alleging that they did not qualify on account of over age. The petitioners, therefore, sought for a relief that, at least they should be given pay that is now being drawn by Mr.G.Sreekumar, since they together had approached the administration.
4. Apparently this is a case in which the petitioners were given age relaxation for the purpose of regularising their service. OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 4 In the absence of any such age relaxation they could not have been appointed at all. It is true that the Department had rejected their claim on several occasions. It is rather clear that the age relaxation had been granted as a matter of concession. Once such concession had been extended and the petitioners were regularised in the year 2013, to claim parity with a person who had worked from the year 1992 and another person in the year 1998, is totally illogical and does not deserve consideration.
5. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE AMV/29/09/2020 OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO. 180/00866/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A 19) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.12(1) 2013/A1/DKT (KPS) DATED 7.7.2014 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A20) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. 12 (1)/2013/AI/DKT(KPMN) DATED 14.8.2014 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
DDK/TVM 2 (6)/88-P/1099 DATED 6.8.1988 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.9.1989 IN O.A. NO. 522/1989 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.1992 IN O.A. NO. 53/1991 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2 (6) 92-A1 /DKT DATED 15.10.1992 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.1993 IN O.A. NO. 1123/1992 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.1996 IN SLP CIVIL NO.
14678/1993 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 12 (1) 95-A1/DKT (BS) DATED 27.10.1995 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 6 28.3.1994 IN O.A. NO. 739/1993 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A.(A9) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.
2/52/93-SI (VOL.II) DATED 16.1.1998 IN RESPECT OF G. SREEKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A10) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 12.1.1998 ISSUED BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DOORDARSHAN.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.1999 IN O.A. NO. 1099/1997 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.8.2005 IN O.A. 612/2002 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A13) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.10.2009 IN WPC NO. 25425/2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A14) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2011 IN O.A. NO. 940/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A15) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN R.A. NO.
62/2011 IN O.A. NO. 940/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A16) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
12(1)/2013/A1/DKT/(KPM) 8197 DATED 20.8.2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A16(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 12 (1)/2013/A1/DKT/(SKP) DATED 21.11.2013 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A17) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P.C.
NO, 129/2012 IN O.A. NO. 940/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A18) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.2013 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A21) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF B. SREEKUMAR FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 7 EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A21(A)) TRUE COPY OF PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF M.S. AJIKUMAR FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2013.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A21(B)) TRUE COPY OF PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2013.
EXHIBIT P1 O.A. (A22) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF 1ST APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2 O.A. (R1) A COPY OF LETTER NO. 2/20/2002 S-I (VOL.II) DATED 6.8.2013 OF DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P2 O.A. (R1(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 34-17/2005-SI DATED 22.7.2010 OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL DOORDARSHAN, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 24.9.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P3 O.A. (A23) TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST AND INTERVIEW HELD ON 2.9.1989 AND 4.11.1989 FOR THE POST OF FLOOR ASSISTANT.
EXHIBIT P3 O.A. (A24) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.
68/2011 DATED 4.10.2016 OF THE HONBLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-11, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 (A25) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.7.2017
ISSUING SUMMONS TO ONE G.
SUNDARESAN PILLAI, WORKING AS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN DDK
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND S. GANESH WORKING AS UDC IN DDK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
OP (CAT).No.250 OF 2019 8 EXHIBIT P3 O.A.(A26) TRUE COPY OF O.M. NO. 2 (3)/86-SI DATED 10.6.1992 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 O.A.(A27) TRUE COPY OF O.M. NO. 2 (3) /86-SI DATED 9.6.1992 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(R1(B)) TRUE COPY OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL BENCH CAT NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 15.11.2016 IN O.A. NO. 1026/2015.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.8.2018 IN O.A. NO.
180/00866/2015 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF R.A. NO. 180/0049/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P6 O.A. (RA1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.8.2018 IN O.A. NO.
180/00866/2015 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P6 O.A. (RA2) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE REVIEW APPLICANTS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2018 IN R.A. NO. 180/00049/2018 OF THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE