Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief factual background is that the applicants and the private respondents were working in the Information & Broadcasting Ministry, in the All India Radio, in three Wings, i.e. Ministerial, Production and Central Information Service. In terms of a Scheme dated 18th June, 1982, options were sought from non-performing cadres (termed so because they were not artistes or "performers") to be treated as Government servants on regularization in Group A posts after being duly screened by a Committee in consultation with the UPSC. The applicants opted for regularization in the regular civil cadre in Group A and fixation of inter se seniority. Their requests remained pending with the Government. Other regularized staff in the Production Wing such as the Chief Producer, Deputy Chief Producer and Producer in the Indian / Foreign Language of the services were duly incorporated in regular production cadres. The applicants were informed in November, 1989 that Supervisors (Foreign Language) did not fit into the Programme Management category and could therefore not be extended the benefit given to the others cadres Consequently, they moved the CAT by filing OA No.2036/1990. That application was allowed on 17th January, 1992 with a direction that since duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Supervisors (Foreign Language) were in no way inferior to those shouldered by the encadred Programme Officers of the equivalent rank in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service, the applicants were also to be treated equally by providing for encadrement. Thereafter, it appears from the records that several attempts were made towards that end. One Original Application No.635/2002 was pending; it was disposed off in view of the order made by Central Government on 11th September, 2007 which sought to grant certain benefits to them. That order reads as under:-

"Subject: Encadrement of Supervisors (ESD) into regular Programme Cadre (Group A) of AIR and subsequently into IB (P) S."

Reference Prasar Bharti‟s Note No. A-10/76/07-PPC dated 25.05.2007 on the above mentioned subject.

2. The proposal of Prasar Bharti for encadrement of the Supervisors (Foreign Language) in ESD of AIR, who have been declared Govt. Servant in pursuance to the Govt. Of India‟s scheme circulated vide letter No.45011/26/80-B (A) dated 3.5.1982, into regular Programme Cadre (Group A) of AIR and their subsequent induction into Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service has been examined and the competent authority has approved the following:

10. The respondents / applicants argued that their previous attempt to secure justice had been recognized in the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 17th January, 1992 in O.A. No. 2036/1990. The Tribunal had then - long ago in 1992 itself - recognized that they being Supervisors (Foreign Language) were entitled to parity with the Encadred Programme Officers in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) service and, therefore, entitled to be encadred or granted similar benefits of encadrement. That finding became final. Therefore, all that remained was that the Central Government had to frame a reasonable scheme to extend to the respondents / applicants encadrement benefits. That the respondents / applicants had litigated at various stages for over 25 years (since the initial scheme of 1982) to claim their parity with the (now) encadred officers which ultimately culminated in the circular dated 11th September, 2007 is undisputed. That the rival claims for its enforcement on the one hand and challenge, on the other led to the matter being remitted to the Government on 21st October, 2008. This, however, did not mean that the pre-existing parity recognized as far back as in 1992 could however been, in any manner, disturbed by the Central Government by indulging in fresh exercise of formulation of scheme by issuing the impugned Circular on 8th October, 2009 and recalling the order / circular dated 11th September, 2007. It was argued that in any event the impact upon the Central Government is minuscule, if at all, since three out of the four original applicants had retired and in any event, direction (iii) in the impugned order would obviously protect third party officials against any adverse impact to the existing employees so far as the conferment of seniority and other terminal benefits to the respondents / applicants are concerned.

11. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident from the above narrative that the Central Government never disputed the factual situation which the respondents / applicants were in. It is also not in dispute that in 1982, options were elicited from all when the proposal to encadre various non-performing staff employees were mooted. It is further not in dispute that the applicants opted to be encadred. Unfortunately for them - unlike in the case of others, -- this option remained unprocessed and pending. Their claim for justice was recognized in 1992 by the CAT which held that the duties and functions performed by them was in no way different from that of Encadred Programme Officers in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service which had been constituted in 1990 further to the options exercised by all the officers from whom the options were elicited. The exclusion of the applicants, therefore, was virtually a quirk of fate and a matter of injustice to them. Their efforts to secure justice remained unsuccessful until after several proceedings (and during the pendency of a case instituted in 2002)- their plea was granted by the Central Government on 11th September, 2007. That the Central Government did not factor the possible adverse impact on the other employees, who were by then encadred in the regular Production Cadre, due to the manner in which the regularization benefits were sought to be conferred upon the respondents / applicants by it perhaps justifiably led to the regularly encadred officers seeking restraint orders from the Tribunal. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal left it to the Government to work out rival claims - for encadring of the applicants on one hand and the limiting of any adverse impact of such a move, voiced by existing cadred employee on the other. This never meant that the pre-existing parity recognized by the Tribunal and directed by it in terms of the previous order of 1992 was ever effaced.