Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
L Shiva Shankar Reptd By Smt D ... vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 30 August, 2023
1
OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00234/2020
ORDER RESERVED ON: 07.08.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 30.08.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Smt D. Venkatalakshmi,
W/o Shiva Shankar.L,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.811, 5th Main, 2nd Stage,
West of Chord Road,
Bengaluru-560 086. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri A.R. Holla)
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
'A' Wing, Shastry Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharati Secretariat,
Tower 'C', Mandi House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Director General,
Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhavan,
Mandi House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Addl. Director General/Head of Office,
Doordarshan Kendra, J.C. Nagar,
Bangalore-560 006. ....Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
2
OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant had filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) Call for the records leading to regularization of Casual Artists vide Annexure A-19 dated 8.6.2015
b) To quash the pay fixation statement order No.14(5)/(ACP)/2010-A dated: 27.08.2010 issued by the 4th respondent, Annexure-A11 (impugned order)
c) To quash the Speaking Order No.2/11/19-S-I/39 dated: 24.01.2020, issued by the 3rd respondent, Annexure-A-26. (Impugned order).
d) To direct the respondents to grant the CGIT award benefit vide Annexure A-14 dated 21.7.2011 and Annexure A-17 dated 1.2.2012 as held by this Tribunal in OA No: 356/2017 in its order dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure A 23) & as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 19.9.2019 (Annexure A-25) with all congenital benefits.
2. During the proceedings, Shri N. Obalappa, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission to bring the legal representative of the applicant on record, since Shri L. Shivashankar, the original applicant in the OA unfortunately passed away on 30.7.2020 during the Covid pandemic. Shri N. Obalappa, learned counsel for the applicant also unfortunately passed 3 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench away on 19.2.2021 during the Covid pandemic. Subsequently, Shri A.R. Holla, Advocate filed vakalath on 15.6.2021.
3. The learned counsel Shri A.R. Holla, filed 3 MAs i.e. MA.No.43/2022 seeking to set aside the abatement, MA No: 44/2022 for condonation of delay in bringing the LR on record and MA No: 45/2022, seeking permission to come on record. All the three MAs were allowed on 15.9.2022 for the reasons stated therein. The delay of 319 days in filing the abatement application was condoned. Abatement was set aside. LR of the deceased applicant i.e., Smt. D. Venkatalakshmi was permitted to come on record. Cause title was allowed to be amended accordingly.
4. The facts of the case as per the pleadings of the parties in the matter, are as follows:
a) The applicant joined as a Film Projectionist on 15.2.1990 at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. The applicant was confirmed in the post on completion of his probationary period on 15.2.1992.
b) The applicant was granted 1st ACP from 15.2.2002 on completion of 12 years of service in the scale of 4500-7000. He was granted the 2nd MACP w.e.f. 15.2.2010 on completion of 20 years of total service in the Pay Scale of Rs.5000-8000.
c) The post of Film Projectionists was abolished in the year 2000. The applicant was declared surplus. The total number of incumbents in the grade of Film Projectionists were 45. The available vacancies of Film/video editors existing at that point of time were only 24 in 4 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench number. It was decided by the respondents to adjust 24 Film Projectionist and Film Processors in the ratio of 2:1 on the post of Film/video editors. The rest of the incumbents on the post of film projectionists were planned to be adjusted as and when vacancies in the grade of Film/ Video Editors arose in future.
d) The Respondents issued an order O.M. Dated 16.5.2012, absorbing/adjusting the original applicant in the post of Film/Video Editor, and posted him to DDK, Delhi. The applicant however, declined to accept the higher post, and continued in DDK, Bangalore as he was drawing basic pay more than the basic pay of his higher post of Film Video Editor. He chose to continue in Bangalore on his own.
e) The Respondents issued another order on 11.8.2016 absorbing him in the post of Film/Video Editor in DDK, Bangalore, itself. The applicant joined this post and assumed the charge on 23.08.2016 at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore.
f) The applicant filed OA.No.356/2017 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 18.12.2018. In this OA 356/2017, the applicant had prayed for the following relief:
"a) To set aside the Office Memorandum bearing No.22/1/2016-
S1/517 dtd.11.8.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and order dtd.24.8.2016 No.BNG/DDK/14(5)2016-A issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A6 and A7 respectively, so far as it relates to absorption of the service of the applicant as Film and Video Editor with prospective effect from 24.8.2016.
b) To direct the respondents to treat the applicant as Film and Video Editor w.e.f. 29.6.2000 from the date on which the Prasara Bharathi Broad Casting Corporation, 1st respondent herein issued 5 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Memorandum dtd.29.6.2000 and grant all consequential benefits arised out of the OM dtd.29.6.2000 bearing No.18/1/2000-S.I(A) as per Annexure-A1."
g) This OA.No.356/2017 was disposed of by this Tribunal vide its order dated 18.12.2018. The operative portion of the order was as follows:
"10. We have gone through the main contentions of the applicant and reply of the respondents in detail. The crux of the issue relates to the OM dtd.29.6.2000 (Annexure-A1) wherein the Film Projectionists and Film Processors who are declared as surplus have been adjusted against the vacant posts of Film/Video Editors. There were a total 48 such persons in both the categories to be adjusted and since there were only 24 Film/Video Editor vacancies at that time, they were absorbed in the ratio of 2:1 namely two film projectionists/film processors for one film/video editor with the rest being adjusted later based on vacancies. The applicant is in the category of persons who are not adjusted at that time for want of vacancies. From the OM and various rules relating to the absorption of surplus persons in Govt., it is clear that the applicant's case is not strong enough to be considered for adjustment for the year 2000 as requested by him since the vacancies were not available at that time and the applicant has also not brought out any case of malafide adjustment of persons junior to him etc. Therefore, his contention that since they are deemed to have been on deputation to Doordarshan from 2000 onwards, they should be considered for the higher scale as was done for the other film projectionists/film processors who were adjusted against the vacant posts of film/video editors has no merit.
11. The applicant has however brought in two issues which merit consideration. One is relating to the OM dtd.1.2.2012 at Annexure- A4 wherein based on acceptance of CGIT award dtd.26.6.2007, Prasar Bharati has granted financial upgradation to the incumbents to the posts of Painters/Carpenters/Tailors on par with 6 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Floor Assistants as on 21.2.2005. The post of Film Projectionist is on the same pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 (pre- revised) on par with those of the Painters, Carpenters, Tailor posts. The post of Film Projectionists itself having been abolished in 2000, their position can also be considered equivalent to that of these isolated posts of Painters/Carpenters/Tailors. Inasmuch as the persons in the category of the applicant have also been in the same scale of pay, the respondents may consider their case for such beneficial treatment as was extended to the categories of Painters, Carpenters, Tailor, etc. considering their services with the organisation since 1990. The applicant has also brought in details of the casual artists who have been regularised against various vacant posts vide Annexure-A20. The background of such regularisation is not presented in this application but the grievance of the applicant in not being considered on similar lines is justified. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the absorption of the applicant on par with similarly placed persons as noted above within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The OA is disposed of with the above orders. No costs.
h) The respondents filed a Writ Petition No.19103/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against these order of this Tribunal, which was disposed of by the High Court on 19.9.2019 with the direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents as directed by the Tribunal.
i) The Respondents in pursuance of these orders passed in OA.No.356/2017 dated 18.12.2018 issued a detailed speaking order dated 24.01.2020 in which the prayer of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant cannot be compared with 7 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench Painter/Tailors/Carpenters who had been placed on par with Floor Assistants. The cadre of Painter/Tailors/Carpenters had filed a case before the Labour Court, which had passed orders to treat them at par with Floor Assistants. They were staff artists of a different cadre and therefore cannot be compared with the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant had been adjusted against the post of Film Video Editor being Group B post in a higher scale. Film Video Editor is also eligible for promotion to the post of Edit Supervisor which is a group B Gazetted post.
j) This speaking order vide which the prayer of the applicant, to grant him retrospective benefits at par with the Painters/tailors/carpenters, has been rejected by the respondents, is the subject matter of challenge in the present OA.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. The applicant had joined as a Film Projectionist and remained a Film Projectionist till such time as he was absorbed as a Film/Video editor. He accepted his absorption to the post of Film Video Editor on 24.08.2016. He had been offered this post earlier on 16.5.2012 but he had refused to join at that time for reasons best known to him. He received the first financial upgradation under ACP scheme on 15.2.2000 in the scale of Rs.4500-125- 7000 and the 2nd financial upgradation under MACP -II on 15.2.2010 in PB2 Rs. 9300-34800 +GP 4200.
8
OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench
7. The post of Film Video Editor to which he was appointed in 2016 also had promotional avenues, which were available to the applicant on due dates. The applicant's cadre was that of Film Projectionist and Film Video Editors. This cannot be compared to be on par with that of Painter/Carpenter/Tailor etc., which is a different cadre altogether.
8. Simply on the ground that the post of Film Projectionist carried an identical pay scale to the posts of Painter/Carpenter/Tailor at that time, does not entitle the applicant to be considered to be a part of the same cadre. The CGIT award relied upon by the applicant was for Painter/Carpenter/Tailor etc., only and not for Film Projectionists. There is no plausible justification for the applicant to be considered to be at par with the cadre of Painter/Carpenter/Tailor etc., and be granted upgradations under ACP/MACP schemes as available to Floor Assistants to which parity had been granted to Painters/Carpenters/Tailors as per CGIT Award. The applicant as well as the other film projectionists were never a party in the case related to the CGIT award.
9. The applicant accepted his absorption as a Film Video editor in the year 2016 although he had been offered the same post earlier in 2012 as well. He has also been the beneficiary of ACP/MACP upgradations granted to him from time to time. Once he is a part of the Film/Video editor cadre, he cannot now claim to be a part of the Painter/Carpenter/Tailor cadre and claim retrospective benefits. All these aspects have been considered in detail in the speaking order issued by the respondents vide their letter F.No.2/11/19- 9 OA.No.234/2020/CAT/Bangalore Bench S.I/39 dated 24.1.2020. This Tribunal finds no reason to disagree with the same.
10. Keeping in view the above points, the OA does not have any merit whatsoever and deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/