SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
E KRISHNA RAO & ORS ETC. ETC. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11948-11950 OF 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2018
Facts of the case:
The First Respondent was engaged as a TV News Correspondent on contract for a period of five years on 6 August 1988. The second Respondent was engaged as a TV Assistant News Correspondent on contract on 12 August 1988. The Rules came into effect on 5 November 1990. They did not have a specific provision for the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent.
On 29 November 2011, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sought options from the Respondents on whether they desired to be treated as government servants or whether they wished to continue as contractual employees. The First Respondent opted to be treated as a government servant. He was declared as a government servant with effect from 31 March 1992.
The Respondents were not given any promotion for twelve years. Aggrieved by this, they filed OA 916 of 1999 and OA 1010 of 1999 before the CAT, claiming that they had not received any promotion, as they were not treated as members of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service by the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the applications of the Respondents and directed the government to grant them all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases for promotion.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that acceptance by the Respondents of benefits under the Annual Career Progression scheme did not disentitle them to get equivalent pay scales.
Finding of the Court:
CAT and High Court rightly decided the matter.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. The appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 20 March 2014. The High Court rejected a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [The “Tribunal” ] directing the appellants to provide to the Respondents all benefits of service and to consider their cases for promotions in accordance with the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990 [The Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990 are referred to in this judgment as the Rules.].
2. The First Respondent was engaged as a TV News Correspondent on contract for a period of five years on 6 August 1988. The second Respondent was engaged as a TV Assistant News Correspondent on contract on 12 August 1988. The Rules came into effect on 5 November 1990. They did not have a specific provision for the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent. The Rules define the expression ‘departmental candidates’ thus:
“(c) “Departmental Candidates” means-
“(i) Officers appointed on regular basis in consultation with the commission or on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion committee, and who hold posts on regular basis or hold, lien in Group 'A' programme cadre of All India Radio and Doordarshan on the date of commencement of these rules and
(ii)All officers appointed on regular basis to the post of video executive in Doordarshan in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500;”
Rule 6, which provides for the initial constitution of the service, reads thus:
“6. Initial Constitution of the Service:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3) and () all departmental candidates holding posts or regular basis in the scales of pay of Rs. 5900-6700, Rs.3700-5000, Rs.3000-4500 and Rs. 2200-4000 shall from the date of commencement of these rules, be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the Service.
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply, to those Department Candidates who have been granted Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000.
(2) (a) The Departmental Candidates referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of rule 2 shall be required to convey their options in writing for inclusion in any one of the four Cadres of the Service.
(b) In the event of options not being received within the stipulated time, the Departmental Candidates shall be deemed to have opted in the respective cadre of the All India Radio or Doordarshan, as the case may be, where they are working.
Provided that the Departmental Candidates referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of rule 2 shall merge with the Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan and will maintain their separate identity as indicated in Schedule VII.
(3) (a) The commission shall constitute a Selection Committee with the Chairman or a Member of the Commission, as President and not more than three representatives of the appropriate status to be nominated by the Controlling Authority to consider all the options from the departmental Candidates referred to in sub-rule (2) and recommend the cadre and the Medium to which such Departmental Candidates may be appointed, and submit lists of officers considered suitable for such appointment to the Commission, which shall forward to the Controlling Authority its recommendations thereon.
(b) The decision of the Controlling Authority in respect of appointments based on the recommendations of the Commission shall be final and such appointments shall be deemed to have been made with effect from the date of constitution of the Service.
(c) After such departmental candidates have been so allocated to a particular Medium or a cadre thereof they will continue to serve in the cadre of that medium to which they have been so assigned:
Provided that the commission may, while making such recommendations, in respect of Departmental candidates, referr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.