JUSTIN IMMANUEL B Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the Central administrative Tribunal dated September 5, 2001 passed in O. A. No. 1184/2000 preferred by the contesting respondents 1 to 5. The challenge in the said Original Application was to an order dated November 9,2000 of the sixth respondent and for a direction to the sixth respondent to count the seniority of the contesting respondents in the post of Lighting assistant with effect from their first date of appointment and consider the first respondent for regularisation with effect from the date on which his immediate junior namely the second respondent was regularised, i. e. on November 19, 1994 and respondents 2 to 5 for regularisation with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors namely the petitioners herein were regularised, i. e. September 3, 1997 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts relating to the respective date of joining of the petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 have been set out in detail in the impugned order of the Tribunal and therefore, we are not stating those details in this order. The common facts are that the petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 joined Doordarshan Kendra, Chennai between 1977 and 1986 on different dates as casual Artists (Lighting Assistants ). They were claiming for regularisation of their services in the post of Lighting Assistants. The claim of the casual Artists was considered by the sixth respondent and by an Office Memorandum dated June 9, 1992, a Scheme of Regularisation was announced stipulating certain conditions; under which such regularisation would take place. A subsequent Office Memorandum was also issued on June 10, 1992 by the sixth respondent, by which other guidelines were issued for implementing the Scheme of; regularisation. Thereafter, when doubts were raised by the various Doordarshan Kendras, the same was clarified by the sixth respondent in its subsequent Office Memorandum dated september 1, 1992. Thereafter, all the eligible casual Artists in the Doordarshan Kendra, chennai were listed out based on their respective dates of eligibility. The names of 16 individuals were set out in the said list dated october 20, 1992. The names of the petitioners in W. P. No. 20186/2001 appeared in S. Nos. 3 to 7 and 9 in the said list, while the name of the petitioner in W. P. No. 19641/2001 appeared in s. No. 2 of the said list. Virtually, the said list dated October 20, 1992 was construed as the seniority list of all the Casual Lighting assistants whose services came to be regularised pursuant to the Regularisation scheme dated June 9, 1992 and the guidelines dated June 10, 1992.

(3.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 19641/2001 was regularised with effect from November 19, 1994 while the petitioners in 20186/2001 were all regularised with effect from September 12, 1997. Be that as it may, one Kishanlal Kamboj, s/o Shankar Lal approached the Principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that his service as Casual Labourer artist announced on an earlier date than his juniors, whose services came to be regularised overlooking his seniority and the said application preferred by him in O. A. No. 2484/1993 was considered by the Principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Principal Bench considered the stand of the said applicant, namely, as per the Scheme of regularisation the seniority has to be reckoned with reference to the date of first engagement as casual Labourer de hors the lower age limit fixed with reference to which there was no stipulation as far as Casual Labourers are concerned and on that basis held that the said applicant was senior to the contesting respondent 3 in that Original Application and therefore, the said applicant was entitled for his seniority to be fixed over and above the third respondent in that Original Application. After the order of the Central Administrative tribunal, Principal Bench dated July 14, 1999, the Prasar Bharati issued an Office memorandum dated October 14,1999 in and by which the order of the Tribunal was implemented. The said Office Memorandum dated October 14, 1999 also directed the doordarshan Kendras to the effect that if they had fixed the seniority of Casual Artists contrary to the order of the Central administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New delhi, they should immediately rectify their mistake. However, in the case of respondents 1 to 5, the sixth respondent herein by its order dated October 9, 2000 rejected their claim for refixing their seniority based on the Prasar bharati's communication dated October 14, 1999. It was in the above stated circumstances, the respondents 1 to 5 approached the Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 1184/2000. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the Tribunal taking note of the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 2484/1993 and the consequent direction of the Director (Administration) of Prasar Bharati dated october 14, 1999, set aside the order dated october 9, 2000, wherein the sixth respondent rejected the representation of respondents 1 to 5 made to the sixth respondent and directed the sixth respondent to recast the seniority of respondents 1 to 5 vis-a-vis petitioners by reckoning the date of initial engagement as the criteria for determining the seniority. The tribunal also held that based on such recast seniority, respondents 1 to 5 would be entitled to all monetary and service benefits such as pay fixation on par with their juniors and promotion to higher grades based on the said recast seniority. The Tribunal also fixed the time limit of eight weeks for carrying out the said exercise.