BISWAMBHAR ADHIKARI Vs. PRASAR BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER while serving as Executive Producer, Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar was transferred by Deputy Director (Admn.), Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India (opposite party No. 2) as per transfer order Annexure 2. He was transferred to Sambalpur as Station Director of Doordarshan Kendra. Opposite party No. 3 while functioning as Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Raipur was transferred to Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar to function as head of office. That order of transfer was passed on 23.5.2001.

(2.) PETITIONER has ventilated his grievance against that order of transfer mainly on two grounds, viz., (i) that he is five years senior in service to opposite party No. 3 and therefore petitioner should not have been transferred to a category 'B' Centre like Sambalpur and opposite party No. 3 should not have been transferred to a category 'A' Centre like Bhubaneswar in view of the seniority of the petitioner and when petitioner has already served in the Eastern regional centres for required period ; and (ii) in view of Section 11 of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India ) Act, 1999 (in short the Act) which has come into force in April, 1999 no regulation or guideline has yet been framed to regulate the service conditions and therefore the guidelines and service conditions applicable to the employees of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is still applicable and in view of that petitioner could not have been transferred from 'A' category Kendra to 'B' category Kendra within a period of four years from his date of posting at Bhubaneswar. In course of hearing the question also came up for consideration relating to maintainability of the O.J.C. i.e., as to whether the petitioner should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal or this Court and in that context petitioner's contention is that he being an officer working under the Prasar Bharati, therefore CAT has no jurisdiction.

(3.) IN the preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, opposite party No. 3 stated that in view of the letter from the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs in Dy. No. 32193/98 file No. 15/13/97 PBC (P.t.)Annexure II it has been indicated that all employees are to be treated as employees of the Central Government and they would be called the employees of the Corporation only when a formal order of transfer is issued in Section 11(1) of the Act. As such they will be entitled to all benefits of the Central Government employees till they ceased to be so. It is further stated that after receipt of order of transfer petitioner opted to abide by the order of transfer and drew advance T. A. and thereafter filed the writ application without having any genuine grievance. Opposite parties also stated that when the petitioner made representation before the authority he should not have preferred the writ application without waiting for the decision of the authority. Petitioner also relied on an unreported decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 20051/2000 (Annexure I) on the question of maintainability of the writ application.