Patna High Court
Union Of India Through Secretary ... vs Akaswani & Doordarshan Diploma ... on 12 May, 2015
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1869 of 2015
=====================================================
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Raghu Menon, then was, Secretary Department of
Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi through
Mrs. Alka Sirohi, then was.
3. Mr. Rajiv Takru (then was) Chief Executive Officer, Prasar
Bharthi, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan
Mandi House, New Delhi.
4. Mr. Noreen Naqvi (then was), The Director General, AIR,
AIR Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
-------Respondents/Petitioners
Versus
1. Akaswani & Doordarshan Diploma Engineer Association
through its President namely Brij Kishore Roy, son of
Langtu Roy, resident of CB -19, Biswas Apartment Christan
Colony, Keshwa Lal Road, Lodipur, Patna posted as Sr.
Engg. Asstt. at AIR (CBS), Patna.
2. Harendra Kumar Mishra, son of Adya Saran Mishra, resident
of DDK Patna, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District -
Patna, posted as Sr. Engg. Asstt. at DDK, Patna.
3. Manoranjan Kumar, son of Rangu Lal, working as AE,
DDMC, Gaya.
4. Nagina Singh, son of Rangu Lal, working as Assistant
Engineer, HPT Kingway Compound, AIR, New Delhi.
5. Manju Kumari Sahay, D/o - Late H.N. Sahay, working as
Assistant Engineer, AIR, Patna.
6. Sudhanshu Kumar, son of Late Kaleshwar Prasad, resident
Patna High Court CWJC No.1869 of 2015 dt.12-05-2015
-2-
of Mohalla - Anishabad, P.S. - Gardanibagh, District -
Patna, posted as Sr. Engg. Asstt. at AIR (CBS), Patna.
7. Binod Kumar, son of Laxmi Prasad Sah, working as Sr. EA,
AIR, Patna.
8. Radhika Raman Prasad Singh, son of Sarju Prasad Singh,
working as Sr. EA, Ranchi.
9. Prabhati Sinha, wife of Ram Narayan Sinha, resident of
Longertoli, P.S. and P.O. Pirbahore, District - Patna.
10. Shyamal Naskar, son of P. Naskar, working as Assistant
Engineer, DDK, Kolkatta.
11. Om Prakash Ram, son of Tuntun Ram, working as Sr. EA,
AIR, Patna.
12. Chuni Lal Sharma, son of Late Gyan Chandra Sharma, AE,
DDK, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh.
---------Applicants/Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 12-05-2015
Heard learned counsel for the Union of India
and Sri Abhinav Srivastava, who sought leave to intervene in
the matter on behalf of contesting respondents, and with their
consent, this application has been heard for its final disposal
at this stage itself.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1869 of 2015 dt.12-05-2015
-3-
2. A proceeding was initiated upon an
application filed by Akaswani and Doordarshan Diploma
Engineers Association through its President namely Brij
Kishore Roy and other persons before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal'), Patna Bench, Patna. Their claim was that they
were entitled to Assured Career Progression (hereinafter
referred to as 'ACP') which was being wrongly denied by the
Doordarshan authorities. The matter was contested before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected the plea of Doordarshan
that certain incremental allowances having been granted, it
would be treated as upgradation disentitling the applicants
the benefit of ACP. The Tribunal, accordingly, directed that
all persons be granted ACP. Doordarshan authorities being
aggrieved preferred a writ petition before this Court. The writ
petition, after contest, was dismissed with slightest
modification. The writ court held that there could not be a
generalized direction to grant ACP but the direction could be
limited to persons individually in whose cases the facts
would have to be examined, but principally, writ court
rejected the plea of Doordarshan that any increment or
upgradation disentitled the applicants to ACP. Against this,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1869 of 2015 dt.12-05-2015
-4-
Doordarshan went unsuccessfully before the Apex Court.
Notwithstanding the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in writ proceedings and the
Apex Court aforesaid, the Doordarshan authorities were not
implementing the same. An application was filed for
initiating contempt proceedings against Doordarshan. While
those contempt proceedings were pending, Doordarshan
authorities then started examining individual cases, but, while
doing so, they once again started rejecting the claims on the
same ground which had already been negatived by the
Tribunal and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
This denial of ACP was then brought to the notice of the
Tribunal in the pending C.C.P.A. The Tribunal took notice of
the facts and held that the Doordarshan authorities were
prima facie guilty of contempt. While directing
implementation of the earlier order of the Tribunal, notices
were issued initiating contempt proceedings and requiring
personal appearance of Chief Executive Officer of Prasar
Bharti. This is order dated 08.12.2011 passed in C.C.P.A. No.
22/2011, arising out of O.A. No. 514/2002. It is this order
against which the present writ petition has been filed on
29.01.2015i.e. almost after 3½ years.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1869 of 2015 dt.12-05-2015 -5-
3. The first question before us is, why the writ petition after 3½ years ? The answer is that this C.C.P.A. proceedings have already stood terminated upon full implementation of the order of the Tribunal long back on 23.05.2012, where the Doordarshan authorities have accepted the orders of the Tribunal, implemented the same and granted benefit to all the applicants. The next question is that if C.C.P.A. itself has been disposed of finally then this order which was of an interim nature merged with the final order and is no more operative. If, it is no more operative then why this challenge. The answer given is that while the C.C.P.A. was finally being disposed of, Doordarshan authorities had sought and obtained a leave to file Review Application before this Hon'ble Court and they thereafter filed a Review Application for review of the writ judgment but had withdrawn the same.
4. Having withdrawn the Review Application having suffered final orders in the earlier original application, having suffered the final order in the writ proceedings, having suffered the final order in C.C.P.A., we fail to appreciate what is the cause of action to file the present writ petition against the non-existent order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1869 of 2015 dt.12-05-2015 -6-
5. The only ground now that is pointed out is that based upon its order which was interim in nature, relief is being taken by various employees of the Doordarshan in different parts of the country and, therefore, it has become necessary for them to challenge this order.
6. We also see no reason to interfere inasmuch as the C.C.P.A. proceedings having been concluded and the Doordarshan authorities having implemented the orders, having accepted the orders of the Tribunal, cannot now come to challenge an interim order passed at an interim stage.
7. We are afraid, we are unable to appreciate the apprehension which appears to be totally misconceived. An interim order can never be a precedent nor can be an authority in respect of any decision. Final orders having been passed and implement, the apprehension is misconceived and so is the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Rajeev/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)
U