Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Gopal Dass vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 21 May, 2012

      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
	
OA No.1721 of 2012
MA No.1436 of 2012

New Delhi this the 21st day of May, 2012

Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)

1.	Gopal Dass
	Aged about 52 years
	S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal,
	R/o G-650, Raj Nagar-II,
	Palam Colony,
	New Delhi-110077.

2.	Upender Rai
	Aged aout 50 years
	S/o Shri Jawala Prasad Rai,
	R/o C-177, Prem Nagar Extn.,
	Kirari Extn.,
	Nangloi.

3.	Harjinder Singh
	Aged about 50 years
	S/o Sh. Amar Singh
	R/o 114, Tower Enclave, Phase-2,
	Jalandhar.

4.	Shashi Kant Sharma, aged about 50 years
	S/o Late Sh. Jamuna Dass,
	R/o D-197, IInd Floor, Gali No.9,
	C.R. Road, Laxmi Nagar,
	Delhi-110092.

5.	B. Vasudeva Murthy, aged about 52 years,
	S/o Late Sh. K. Bynna,
	R/o 4, Sai Nivas, Ist Main,
	Ist Cross Ranka Nagar,
	Bangalore-560032.

6.	Amar Singh, Aged about 47 years
	S/o Sh. Sunder Singh,
	R/o 1089, Basti Mithu, Jalandhar.

7.	Faquir Chand, Aged about 46 years,
	S/o Sh. Sibu Singh,
	R/o Village Sunrai, PO Suni Rai,
	Distt. Kapurthla.

8.	Gurdeep Singh, aged about 48 years
	S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
	R/o Tower Enclave, Phase-3,
	Jalandhar.
9.	Ranjeet Singh, aged about 45 years,
	S/o Sh. Sucha Singh,
	R/o Q.No.C-13, DDK Colony,
	Jalandhar.

10.	Roop Lal, Aged about 49 years,
	S/o Sh. Thakur Das,
	r/o Village Mithapur,
	Jalandhar.

11.	K. Vasudeva, Aged about 53 years,
	S/o Late Shri Kamlaksha Shenoy,
	R/o 1/1, H.No.Layout, S.P. Extension,
	Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003.

12.	B.P. Parthasarathy, Aged about 50 years,
	S/o Late Sh. Putta Swamaias,
	r/o 30 Krupa, Ist Cross, Rose Garden,
	J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase, Bangalore-560078.

13.	R.L. Manjunatha, Aged about 49 years,
	S/o Late Sh. M.R. L. Naryana,
	r/o 1868/3, 20th Main 20th Cross,
	M.C. Road, Vijaya Nagar,
	Bangalore-560040.

14.	A Appaji Rao, aged about 48 years,
	S/o Late Sh. Annaji Rao,
	R/o Prakruthi Meadowes,
	B-105, Kashi Nagar, Ambruthalli,
	Bangalore-560096.

15.	V. Prabhakara, Aged about 49 years,
	S/o Sh. J.D. Venkataraman Swamy,
	R/o 25, Harsha Nilya, 8th Main Road,
	Byaraweshwara Nagar,
	Nagarbavi Main Road,
	Bangalore-560072.

16.	Rakesh Kumar, aged about 45 years
	S/o Sh. Hansraj,
	R/o A-194, Double Storey, Kalkaji,
	New Delhi-110019.

17.	Shambhu Nath Mishra, aged about 46 years 
	S/o late Shri Rajendera Mishra,
	R/o E-79, Mangol Puri,
	Delhi-110083.

18.	Harish Chand Rai, Aged about 47 years,
	S/o late Shri Ram Bachan Rai,
	R/o B-548, Mangol Puri,
	Delhi-110083.
19.	Sher Singh, Aged about 48 years,
	S/o Sh. Prem Cahnd,
	R/o E-109, Kidwai Nagar,
	New Delhi-110023.

20.	Mukesh Kumar, aged about 46 years
	s/o Sh. Ishwar Chand,
	r/o 852, Mahawar Nagar Kotla,
	Mubarak Pur,
	New Delhi-110003.

21.	Vijay Kumar Saxena, aged about 51 years,
	S/o Late Shri B.K. Saxena,
	R/o 492, D.D.A. Flat, Sect. 13,
	Dwarka.

22.	P.N. Mohan Rao, Aged about 58 years,
	S/o Sh. P.R. Nagaraja Rao,
	R/o No.11/4, CPWD Quarters, Service Road,
	Besant Nagar,
	Chennai-600090.

23.	TMS. Manoharan, Aged about 54 years
	S/o Sh. R. Manickam,
	R/o No.10, Rosepark Apartment, G-4, Rani Block,
	Shanti Nagar, Ist Cross Street,
	Adambakkam, Chennai-600088.

24.	S. Sekar Kannan, Aged about 54 years,
	R/o No.5, M.G.R. Street, Padhuvancheri,
	Selaiyur Post,
	Chennai-600126.

25.	N. Suresh, aged about 46 years,
	S/o Sh. Narayanankutty,
	R/o No.6, ROB Main Street, Royapettah,
	Chennai-600014.

26.	B. Jastin Immanuel, Aged about 49 years,
	S/o Sh. D.P. Balraj,
	R/o C-9, Vatsanyam Apartment,
	No.7, 8, Reddykuppam Road, Saidapet,
	Chennai-600015.

27.	P. Ravindran, Aged about 54 years,
	S/o Sh. K.V. Pandurangan,
	r/o No.72, 5th Cross Street,
	Kanniamman Nagar,
	Vaanagaram, Chennai-600092.

28.	R. Santhanam, Aged about 46 years,
	S/o T. Ramadass,
	R/o J-12, Gnanavinayagarkoil Street,
	M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam,
	Chennai-600016.

29.	K. Ravi, aged about 46 years,
	S/o R. Kannaiah,
	R/o No.19A, East Street, Alagiri Nagar,
	VAdapalani, Chennai-600026.

30.	K. Suresh Kumar, Aged about 46 years,
	S/o Sh. N. Karunakaran,
	R/o Old No.4, New No.9,
	Sydoji Lane, Triplicane, Chennai-600005.

31.	K. Ramu, Aged about 55 years,
	S/o Sh. C. Kannuswamy, 
	R/o No.2, Ballard Street, Malligapuram,
	Agaram, Chennai-600082.

32.	M. Soundararajan, Aged about 50 years
	S/o Sh. T. Manickavelu,
	R/o No.10, V.O.C. Street, Ethiraj Nagar,
	West Mambalam, Chennai-600033.

33.	S.P. Suramanian, Aged about 49 years,
	S/o Sh. S.S. Padmanabhan,
	r/o Bharath Flats, No.137,
	Radha Nagar Main Road,
	Chromepet, Chennai-600044.

34.	C. Vincent John, Aged about 49 years,
	R/o No.79, Bishop Colony,
	Little Mount,
	Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

35.	G. Sundar Raj, Aged about 46 years,
	S/o Sh. S. Ganesan,
	R/o No.54, Chokkanathan Nagar,
	2nd Street, Madhuravoyal,
	Chennai-600095.

36.	R. Datchanamoorthy, Aged about 52 years,
	S/o K. Raghavan,
	R/o No.93/37, Madhurai Samy Madam,
	1st Street, Sembiam, Perambur,
	Chennai-600011.

37.	L. Manoharan, Aged about 48 years,
	S/o Sh. Lakshmanan,
	r/o No.62, Jagajeevanram Nagar,
	Agaram Road, Selaiyur,
	Chennai-600073.

38.	K. Sankaran, Aged about 48 years,
	S/o Sh. Kannuswamy,
	R/o No.7/18, Harrington 4th Avenue,
	Shenoy Nagar, Chennai -600030.
39.	K.R. Ajit Prakash, Aged about 46 years,
	S/o Sh. K. Raghavan,
	R/o Plot No.15, III Layout, Teachers Colony,
	Kolathur, Chennai-600099.
		.... Applicants
( By Advocate Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj )

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. through :
1.	The Secretary,
	Govt. of India
	Ministry of I&B, Shastri Bhawan, 
New Delhi.

2.	The CEO
	Prasar Bharti,
	PTI Buildig,
	New Delhi.

3.	The Director General,
	Doordarshan Bhawan, 
Mandi House, Copernicus Marg, 
New Delhi.
		.. Respondents

O R D E R (ORAL)

Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) :

The Applicants (39 in number) are working as Lighting Assistants under various Doordarshan Kendras. They are seeking grant of pay scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 by extending the benefit of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.240 of 1989 (Doordarshan Cameramans Welfare Association (Regd) vs. Union of India and another) decided on 12.4.1990 as well as Tribunals judgment vide its order dated 15.5.12007 in the OA No.2386/2005 (Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others) which was upheld by the Delhi High Courts judgment in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.6544 of 2007 (D.G. Doordarshan and another vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others) dated 15.12.2010.

2. The Honble Supreme Court in the above Writ Petition (Civil) No.240 of 1989 vide its order dated 12.4.1990 gave the following directions:-

We direct that the petitioners who occupy the posts belonging to the categories of Sound Recordist, Cameraman Grade II, and Lighting Assistant/Lidhtman in Doordarshan, shall be given the pay scale admissible to their counterparts in the Films Division, including the arrears as ordered in the previous decision.
Before parting with the case, we must say a word more. We have been referred to a chart showing the disparity in salary paid to some of the Artists in Doordarshan as per the order of this Court in contrast with their counterparts in Films Division. We do not want to express any opinion for want of relevant material. We however, add that there shall not be any difference in the pay drawn while giving benefit of the respective pay scales to persons having the same length of service as their counterparts in the Films Division. To do otherwise, would be discriminatory. The respondent shall work out the formula by placing the petitioners in the proper grade in the pay scale allowed to them.
We accordingly allow this Writ Petition by giving three months to comply with these directions.

3. The Tribunal vide its aforesaid order had issued the following directions:-

13. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider grant of pay scale on established comparability of applicants with Assistant Cameramen of Film Division in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The aforesaid shall culminate into a reasoned order to be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that the consequences would ensue. The Honble Delhi High Court modified the Tribunals directions slightly while disposing the aforesaid Writ petition filed by the respondents by passing the following directions:-
(i) The claimants before the Tribunal i.e. the respondents before us would be entitled to be placed in the same pay-scale as their counterparts in the Films Division were placed and equivalence would be as per the two decisions of the Supreme Court noted herein above.
(ii) Upon being placed in the correct pay-scale, the respondents would be liable to be in the minimum of the pay-scale with effect from the date of regularization and needless to state further increments would be earned as per law. Copies of both these judgments have been enclosed with the OA.

4. The benefit of the claimed pay scale has been granted to the applicants in the said OA by the respondents vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure A-1). As a consequence to these developments, the applicants made representations to the Director General, Doordarshan. Copies of these representations have been enclosed as Annexure A/6 (pages 98-125).

5. Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that despite these representations and also approaching the authorities personally, there has not been any positive response in favour of the applicants even though they are similarly situated to the persons, who have been granted the benefit of the higher pay scale. The learned counsel would also submit that at this stage, the applicants would be satisfied, if a time bound direction for considering the representations of the applicants is issued to the Director General, Doordarshan.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, we are of the view that the OA can be disposed in limine. The Director General, Doordarshan (respondent no.3) is directed to consider the representations of the applicants along with the OA as a supplementary representation and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The order so passed should also be conveyed to the applicants. Registry is directed to ensure service of a copy of our order along with a copy of the OA to the respondent no.3. 

(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma)                      (Dr. Veena Chhotray)
     Member (J)                                    	          Member (A)

/ravi/