SHAKEELA ANDRABI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of the instant petition, the petitioners beseech for the grant of following relief(s) in their favour:

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Public Service Broadcaster (Radio Kashmir), in order to tide over and manage the crises threatening the very providing of service as a Public Service Broadcaster, engaged the petitioners to run the show and, upon such engagement, the petitioners were assigned varied duties and responsibilities. It is pleaded that the petitioners, being fully qualified for the assigned jobs, have been performing the same for the past more than two decades and that the work being performed by the petitioners is regular and perennial in nature. It is stated that, thereafter, the competent authority, in recognition and appreciation of the exemplary services rendered by the petitioners and all those casual assignees, who while on casual basis had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for Government employment/ jobs, took a policy decision wherein it was provided that all other casuals, who have already attained the age which is over and above the maximum age required for Government service, may also be engaged for periods upto maximum of 29 days in a month on existing fee structure for assignments, depending upon programme requirements. In pursuance of the aforementioned policy decision, the petitioners, as stated, claim to have been continuously booked on regular basis for a period of 29 days a month, but paid only at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per day when by reason and by virtue of the Policy Decision of the respondent No.1 on the payment of wages, to the Casual Assignees/ Workers like the petitioners are entitled to payment of wages at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of pay scale of the regular post + DA payable to the Daily Rated Workers/ Casual Assignees performing the work/ job as is being performed by a regular employee of the respondent No.2. It is contended that the engagement of the petitioners for a period of 29 days a month owes its genesis to the action taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the Parliament Standing Committee on Labour that the Casual Assignees/ Workers of Radio Kashmir Srinagar who are/ were getting the bookings for 29 days a month shall continue to be engaged on contractual basis for the same duration till they attain the age of 60 years. Thereafter, by virtue of communication No.15/2/2012-P-VI New Delhi dated 7th of March, 2016, the respondents are stated to have reduced the period of bookings from 29 days to 06 days a month, however, the said communication, as stated, the petitioners continued to be booked for a period of 29 days a month until August, 2018, when the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, on the basis of the aforesaid communication read with Programme Inspection Report of March, 2018, reduced the period of bookings of the petitioners from 29 days to 06 days a month. Subsequently, the respondents in terms of order dated 16th of March, 2018, have decided not to accept the recommendations of the Parliament Standing Committee on Labour for regularization of Casual Workers/ Artists of Radio Kashmir, CBS Radio Kashmir and Doordarshan Kendre, Srinagar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for the above stated relief(s).

(3.) Mr Jan, the learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioners, pleads that the impugned order dated 16th of March, 2018 has no application to the facts of the present case as the petitioners have to their credit a continuous service rendered over a period of time spanning over about two decades. The learned senior counsel further submits that the order dated 16th of March, 2018, insofar as it relates to the case of the petitioners is concerned is grossly misconceived and misplaced, but also misdirected in point of law in view of well settled legal position that under our Constitutional scheme it is the Executive that is accountable to the Parliament and not vice versa and that the Department related Parliamentary Committees are constituted by Parliament to oversee the functioning of the Ministries/ Department of the Government with a view to exact the accountability of the Executive. It is further pleaded that the recommendations of the Parliament Standing Committee on Labour have mandatory import and binding on the Executive and, therefore, it was not legally permissible or open in law for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to pass the impugned order dated 16th of March, 2018 in violation of the stand taken before the Parliament Standing Committee on Labour. The learned senior counsel has further proceeded to contend that the action of the respondents in denying and depriving the petitioners the wages due and payable in law at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of pay scale of the regular post + DA is also totally arbitrary, violating with impunity the constitutional guarantees, guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and, thus, illegal and unconstitutional, therefore, unsustainable in law.