Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Ramachandran vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 17 June, 2025
1 OA 310/01365/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01365/2018
Dated Tuesday, the 17th day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)
S.Ramachandran
S/o Late Subramanian
No.2, Kattabomman street,
VOC Nagar, Pammal,
Chennai 600 075. .... Applicant
By Advocate Ms. V. Pooja for M/s. M. Ravi
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
The Director - General Doordarshan,
Prasar Bharathi,
Doordarshan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Director,
Doordharsan Kendra, Swami Sivandar Salai
Chennai 600 005.
3) The Deputy Director-General,
Doordharsan Kendra
Swami Sivanda Salai,
Chennai 600 005.
4) The Deputy Director (Administrator)
Directorate-General of Doordarshan,
Doordharsan Bhavan,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
2 OA 310/01365/2018
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"to call for records relating to the orders in (1) No. 19/5/2014 S.II/356 dated 02.03.2016 of the 4th Respondent with the approval of the First Respondent and (2) No.1 (8) 2008 A1/Che. (Canteen) dated 07.08.2013 of the third Respondent to the limited extent of designating the Applicant as Casual Labourer conferred with temporary status, instead of regular Group 'D' employee and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to designate the Applicant as a 'Group 'D' employee and to regularize his services as such with retrospective effect from 01.09.1993 and to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant within a limited time frame as deemed fit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and thus render justice. "
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer at Doordarshan Kendra (now Prasar Bharathi) on 01.09.1993. He was granted temporary status effective from the same date by an order dated 12.01.1999. Despite various internal communications regarding the regularization of such workers, the Applicant's service was not regularized for years, causing him hardship. On 06.08.2013, an order was issued approving the Applicant's regularization in a Group 'D' post. However, instead of regularizing his service, another order dated 07.08.2013 was issued terminating him from 30.06.2013, still referring to him as
3 OA 310/01365/2018 a temporary status Casual Labourer. The Applicant challenged this action in 2014, seeking recognition as a regular Group 'D' employee from 01.09.1993 with all benefits. On 23.09.2015, the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider his regularization in line with the Uma Devi Supreme Court judgment. However, by an order dated 02.03.2016, his claim was rejected on grounds of being over-aged. A representation dated 07.09.2016 to review the decision went unanswered. Hence, this Original Application is filed seeking the above relief.
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement. It is stated in the reply that the applicant was found to be over-aged at the time of his initial engagement and was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as required by the applicable rules. However, this issue was addressed based on a clarification issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) via O.M. No.49014/2/93-Estt. (C) dated 12.07.1994 (Annexure-3). According to point No. 3 of this clarification, no age limit is prescribed for the grant of Temporary Status. However, for the purpose of subsequent regularization, the conditions recruitment age and educational qualifications prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules are required to be followed. Based on this clarification, the applicant was granted Temporary Status with effect from 01.09.1993 the date on which the scheme was implemented. On that date, the applicant was 40 years, 2 months, and 4 days old. Consequently, he was not eligible for regularization due to non-fulfillment of the required age and educational criteria. The applicant's date of birth, as declared by him and confirmed by his Transfer Certificate, is 4 OA 310/01365/2018 28.06.1953. He therefore reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. Accordingly, the Respondent's action in terminating his services effective from that date is lawful and fully justified. While a policy decision to regularize similarly placed Temporary Status Workers (TSWs) nationwide was issued on 06.08.2013, this decision came after the applicant had already retired. It is also undisputed that his date of birth is 28.06.1953. Thus, his discharge from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013 is legally valid. It is a settled principle that regularization takes effect prospectively from the date of the order. In this case, the applicant had already attained the age of superannuation before the policy decision dated 06.08.2013 was issued. The first Respondent had taken a comprehensive administrative decision applicable across the country. Other similarly placed TSWs who had retired before this decision were also excluded. Hence, the process of regularization had no bearing on the applicant's disengagement. Furthermore, even with the relaxation of the age limit while on Temporary Status, the applicant was found unfit for regularization. Hence the respondents pray for dismissal of the OA.
4. We have heard both the parities, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection that the applicant has filed this application only in the year 2018, although the impugned order was passed in 5 OA 310/01365/2018 the year 2016, therefore there is delay and laches. However, we find no merit in this objection and accordingly we reject the same.
6. It is seen that the applicant had earlier filed OA 12/2014 before this Tribunal and by its order dated 23.09.2014, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation of his services as Group D. In pursuance of the order of this Tribunal, the respondents passed a speaking order on 02.03.2016 stating that the applicant is over aged by 11 years 2 months and 3 days and hence he is not eligible for regularisation. Challenging the said order, the applicant filed the present OA. Whereas this Tribunal on 26.03.2019 dismissed the OA on the ground of res judicata. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
8. If the applicant had any grievance regarding violation of the direction of this Tribunal in passing the impugned order dated 02.03.2016, he ought to have exercised an appropriate legal remedy within a reasonable time thereof. However, the applicant claims that he made further representations on
07.09.2016 and 07.06.2017 on the same subject neither of which is accompanied by any acknowledgement such as postal receipt, etc. Learned counsel for the respondents denies having received any such representation in the absence of documentary evidence thereof.
9. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that it is not possible for this Tribunal to go into the same issue all over again in a fresh OA when it had already been considered by this Tribunal in OA 12/2013 on the same grounds as agitated in this OA. The OA is barred by the principles of res judicata. dismissed. No costs."
7. The applicant filed Writ Petition No. 9449/2020 against the order of this 6 OA 310/01365/2018 Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which by its order dated 20.11.2023 remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
"4. After going through the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 12 of 2023 and the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal in the instant OA in OA No.1365 of 2018, it is found that in the earlier OA, a direction was given by the Tribunal to the respondent Department to consider the case of the petitioner to regularize the services and pass orders within time limit. Pursuant to the said order, the fourth respondent had passed an order dated 02.03.2016 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Challenging the said rejection order passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner had filed the instant OA. Therefore, the reason as stated in the order passed in the instant OA that the instant OA is barred by the principles of res judicata is unacceptable and therefore, we are interfering with the order of the Tribunal and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents may not have any objection or dispute in the facts of the case as found in the said order.
6. In the light of the above, we are inclined to pass order as follows:
i) The impugned order dated 26.03.2019 in OA.No.1365 of 2018 is set aside.
ii) The Tribunal is directed to consider afresh and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, on its own merits, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file additional documents, if any before the Tribunal, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7 OA 310/01365/2018
8. When this Tribunal had issued a clear and specific direction to the Respondents to comply with its orders, the Respondents, albeit reluctantly, passed an order rejecting the Applicant's claim, merely reiterating the same contentions that had already been considered and addressed by the Tribunal. This Tribunal had expressly issued a positive direction for compliance. We would have imposed costs on the Respondents for their non-compliance and disregard of the Tribunal's order, but we are refraining from doing so.
9. In the result, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to designate the applicant as a 'Group 'D' employee and regularize his services as such with retrospective effect from 01.09.1993 and to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. In view of the above, the OA is allowed, on the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
17.06.2025
AS