Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 15: Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Mohan Lal has held that the regularization of services could be recognized under a particular Rule/ Policy of the Government and not otherwise.
The DB was dealing with the petition filed by Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India and others seeking setting-aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 062/0004 of 2016 titled Saif-ud-din Lone & others Versus Union of India and others.
The Tribunal while deciding the OA, in terms of the impugned order, has held that the action of the respondents/ petitioners in not regularizing the services of the applicants in the order of seniority and to the extent of vacancies available was uncalled for, and therefore, the respondents were directed to delink the regularization of casuals in Kashmir from the casuals engaged in the rest of the country and regularize the services of the applicants in the order of seniority with effect from 2003 against the post of Production Assistant to the extent of available vacancies with all consequential benefits.
It has further been directed that the relevant exercise must be carried out within three months. It is stated in the memo of writ petition that the direction for regularization in favour of the respondents/ petitioners therein apart from being contrary to law is also prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners as it has the effect of getting the demands of all the casual engagees all over the country for similar benefit.
“Given the nature and functions of the petitioners, it requires to engage Anchors and Presenters on short term basis so that fresh faces are inducted on contractual basis and if the direction of the Tribunal is allowed to operate, it will, result in claims for regularization from all Anchors, Presenters, Producers which would affect the interests of the petitioners”, the Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation said.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed, “the court is left with one question to answer—whether the Tribunal was justified to grant the ordered relief in favour of the respondents in absence of any Policy, Scheme, Rule, Statute or any other provision of law, or not?
“ True it is that the respondents have rendered their services for the petitioners in most hostile circumstances and they have successfully managed to run the show for the petitioners probably in lieu of the promises extended by the petitioners for their permanent absorption against the posts held by them and this makes them class a part”, the DB said, adding “but, does it confer upon them a special privilege, being the members of such distinct class, to be granted the relief as awarded by the Tribunal?
“The respondents do not point out any single instance that indicates that the petitioners have violated any principle of law, or a statute or even a scheme or policy that provided for any concession in exceptional cases in favour of those casual employees who dare to perform their duties in hostile conditions and make a distinct class”, the DB said, adding “in-fact the respondents do not even claim so. On the respondents own showing their very engagement is but a casual assignment for a definite duration, therefore, not made against a post in any manner whatsoever”.
With these observations, DB allowed the petition and set-aside the impugned order and in consequence whereof the OA filed by the respondents has also been dismissed. “It goes without saying that nothing observed in this judgment shall prevent the petitioners from considering the case of the respondents in terms of the policy presently in operation notified in terms of Circular dated 5th September, 2019, which provides for a mechanism for their permanent absorption in the department. The eligibility criteria, in such, eventuality, shall not form an impediment for the authorities to take a view favorable to the respondents”, the DB added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel