Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 795
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ.
Union Of India Through Secretary, ...Petitioners ministry Of Information And broadcasting, Government Of india, Shastri Bhawan, New delhi
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Through Its Registrar, Kidwaipuri, Patna
CWJC No. 731 of 2006
Decided On : April 16, 2010
The judgment should be taken as authority for what it specifically decides, and the scheme for regularization is confined to those who have worked as artists, excluding a Typist.
Headnote:
Regularization - Casual Artists - All India Radio - Scheme for regularization - 21.12.1994 - [Scheme for regularization of casual artists against vacant posts of Clerk Grade-ll] - [Paragraph 3 of the scheme] - The court discussed the scope and intent of the scheme, emphasizing that it is confined to those who have worked as artists, such as Production Assistants and General Assistants, and does not include a Typist. The court also highlighted the finality of the Tribunal's order and the principle that a judgment should be taken as authority for what it specifically decides.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant worked on a casual, daily-rated basis with the All India Radio and staked a claim for regularization. The Tribunal directed the AIR to reconsider the case for regularization, leading to a writ petition by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant, working as a Typist, was not covered by the scheme for regularization as an artist, and the Tribunal's order did not justify issuing a fresh direction to reconsider the applicant's case.
Issues: Scope and intent of the scheme, finality of Tribunal's order, and the coverage of the applicant under the scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment should be taken as authority for what it specifically decides, and the scheme for regularization is confined to those who have worked as artists, excluding a Typist.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition.
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2003 (Annexure-1) as well as the order dated 5.4.2005 (Annexure-1/A), passed in O.A. No. 458 of 2001 and CCPA No. 115 of 2001 respectively, both passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench.
2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The applicant (respondent no. 2 herein) claims to have worked on casual, daily-rated basis with the All India Radio (for short AIR), Bhagalpur, for the following days:
Year Number of Days Designation 1988 184 Casual Typist 1989 107 Do 1991 35 Do 1989 49 Production Assistant 1990 55 Do 1991__________55______________Do
3. AIR formulated a scheme for regu- larization of its casual artists, vide office memorandum dated 21.12.1994, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"This Scheme would be applicable to all those casual artists who were engaged on casual/assignment basis as Production Assistants and General Assistants upto 31.12.1991 and were on the rolls of All India Radio though, they may not be in service now will be eligible for consideration but those who are engaged on casual/assignment basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible on consideration. 2. Only those casual artists who have been engaged as Production Assistants and General Assistants for an aggregate period of 72 days in a year (Calendar year) will be eligible for regu- larization. The broken period in between the engagement and disengagement will be ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance sheets or Or. Sheets."
4. The applicant staked his claim for regularization. However, in view of the.denial of the benefit ot regularization, he preferred 0:A. No. 55 of 1996, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure-2) with the direction to the AIR to consider the applicants representation on merits. The same was considered and rejected leading to the aforesaid O.A. No. 458 of 2001, which was substantially allowed by the said order dated 6.5.2003, and the AIR was directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization in view of the terms of the scheme and the observations made in the order.
5. The authorities considered the applicants case and rejected the claim by a reasoned order dated 9.9.2003 (Annexure-5), leading to the contempt application which has substantially been allowed by the aforesaid order dated 5.4.2005, passed in CCPA No.115 of 2004 (Annexure-1/A). The Tribunal, however, observed that it was not a case of deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal, but was rather a case of misconception about the provision in law, and the observations made by the Tribunal in its aforesaid order dated 6.5.2003. The Tribunal observed as follows in paragraph 12 of the order and directed the AIR to reconsider the case of the applicant (respondent no. 2 herein), in accordance with law and the observations made by the Tribunal in the order on the original application. Paragraph 12 of the order dated 6.5.2003 reads as under:
"In view of the overall discussions and analysis of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders as at (Annexure-A/5 dated 2.12.1995. Annexure-A/6 dated 7.12.1999 & A/6(a) dated 26.4.2000 are not sustainable, being passed contrary to the material on record, and the same are hereby quashed and set aside with directions to the concerned authorities to re-consider the case of the applicant for regularization as General Assistants/ Clerk Grade-ll/LDC in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to verify the factual position with regard to various documents, as referred to hereinabove, before passing any order in the matter."
6. Aggrieved by the order, the authorities have preferred this writ peti
