LAWS(SC)-1996-2-264

DIRECTORATE GENERAL DOORDARSHAN HOUSE UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALIT VIKRAM:DILIP CHANDRA GOSWAMI:RANJANA PARASHAR

Decided On February 29, 1996
Directorate General Doordarshan House Union Of India Appellant
V/S
Lalit Vikram:Dilip Chandra Goswami:Ranjana Parashar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With regard to regularisation of Casual Artistes and Field Assistants employed with Doordarshan, the central Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") had laid down certain guidelines in the order dated 8/2/1991 in OA No. 894 of 1990. Having regard to the said guidelines, a scheme was framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan, vide office memorandum dated 9/6/1992, which received the approval of the tribunal in order dated 14/2/1993 passed in OA No. 563 of 1986. In para 6 of the said Scheme, provision is made for relaxation of the upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by the Casual Artistes at the time of regularisation and a minimum of 120 days' service in the aggregate, in one year, is to be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose. The respondent was employed as a Casual Floor Assistant during the years 1988 to 1992. His date of birth is 15/1/1964. Since he crossed the upper age limit of 25 years provided under the relevant rules on 6/6/1992, he sought relaxation in the upper age limit on the basis of para 6 of the Scheme. The authorities held that he could be given relaxation by two years and that even then he was not eligible on the ground of being overage. The application submitted by him has been allowed by the tribunal by the impugned judgment. The tribunal has observed that para 6 of the Scheme is not in consonance with guideline (iii) laid down by the tribunal in its order dated 8/2/1991. The appellants have challenged the said view of the tribunal. It is, however, not necessary to go into the said question because during the pendency of this appeal, office memorandum dated 17/3/1994 has been issued whereby the mode of counting the days during which a person has worked as a Casual Artiste in a particular month has been laid down. The respondent has filed (as Annx. R-Z to his counter-affidavit dated 5/9/19944 the copy of a letter dated 27/5/1994 from the Senior Administrative Officer (Central Production Centre) , Doordarshan to the Directorate General enclosing a statement containing details of the casual engagement of the respondent. The said statement shows that during the years 1989-91, the respondent had worked for more than 120 days. In accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Tribunal in the order dated 8/2/1991 as well as under the Scheme dated 9/6/1992 framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan if relaxation for three years' period had been given, the respondent would have been eligible for consideration for regularisation on 9/6/1992. In these circumstances, we uphold the direction given by the tribunal in the impugned judgment for considering the respondent for regularisation under the Scheme since after giving the relaxation of three years in the matter of the upper age limit, he was eligible for such regularisation. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs.

(2.) The respondents are employed as Casual Floor Assistants/production Assistants in the Doordarshan Kendra at Gauhati. They sought regularisation on the basis of the Scheme for regularisation framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan vide memorandum dated 9/6/1992. A question arose whether they are eligible for regularisation under the Scheme. The central Administrative tribunal, Gauhati bench (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") by its judgment dated 16/12/1993, has held that the respondents were eligible for such consideration and has directed that they should be considered for such regularisation under the Scheme for regularisation. The review petition filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the tribunal was dismissed by order dated 24/3/1994.

(3.) Shri A. S. Nambiar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has urged that the respondents were overage and even after giving relaxation in accordance with the Scheme dated 9/6/1992, the respondents were not eligible for consideration for regularisation and that the tribunal has erroneously held that they were eligible.