The Tribunal upheld that policy decisions regarding cut-off dates for regularization are valid unless arbitrary or discriminatory, reaffirming that earlier court rulings must guide eligibility for regularization.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

By way of the present O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a) Quash/set aside Prasar Bharti Circular No. 03/11/2020-LC dated 11.01.2021 rejecting representations against the arbitrary cut-off date of 10.04.2006 and vague eligibility conditions set out in its Scheme for Regularisation numbered 03/04/2019-LC dated 22.08.2019 circulated through Circular No. 03/04/2019-LC dated 05.09.2019;

b) Quash/ set aside Prasar Bharti's Scheme for Regularisation numbered 03/04/2019-LC dated 22.08.2019 which, in the present form, frustrates the spirit and mandate of authoritative and binding judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;

c) Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and just in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the instant Original Application, the applicants have laid challenge to the Scheme for Regularization formulated by the respondents, particularly with regard to its applicability and the fixation of the cut-off date under the Prasar Bharti Secretariat Scheme for Regularization dated 22.08.2019.

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the core contention of the challenge is that, despite the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have erroneously applied 10.04.2006 as the cut-off date, whereas the Scheme ought to have been made operative from the date of its implementation, i.e., 22.08.2019, which alone should be treated as the relevant date for determining eligibility and the effective date of regularization.

2.2 Learned counsel submitted that it is the case of the applicants that they were engaged on a contractual basis by Prasar Bharti in various capacities in DD (Sports), DD (Urdu), DD (India), DD (Kisan), DD (Archives), and DDK (Allahabad), and have continued to work for periods ranging from 12 to 23 years. Learned counsel for the applicants added that Prasar Bharti came into existence in the year 1997, and, therefore, under the impugned Scheme, none of the applicants would fall within the category contemplated for regularization, as they were engaged after the formation of Prasar Bharti.

2.3 In support of applicants’ case, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon para 11 of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423- 7429 of 2018 in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc., which reads as under:-

“11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefits of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc.”

2.4. Learned counsel further drew attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 175-176 of 2019 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sant Lal & Ors. Etc., relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“In this background, the issue which now arises before this Court is in regard to the effective direction which would govern the present case. The High Court has directed the Union of India to absorb the casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then in any other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we have already noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion, the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands in despair by submitting that th