CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH : BANGALORE
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.469/2009
TODAY,
THIS THE DAY OF
................. , 2011
HON'BLE
SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE
SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR ...MEMBER(J)
K.T. Krishna Kanth,
S/o K.N. Thimmaiah,
Aged about
57 years,
News Reader-cum-Translator,
All India Radio,
Bangalore-560 204. ... Applicant
(By
Advocate Shri S. Sugumaran)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
by its
Secretary to Information
And
Broadcasting Ministry,
Shastri
Bhavan, AGCR Building
New Delhi
– 110 001.
2. Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting
Corporation of India),
by its
Director General,
All India
Radio,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi
– 110 001.
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar
Bharati,
PTI
Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi
– 110 001.
4. Station Director,
All India
Radio,
Raj
Bhavan Road,
Bangalore
– 560 204. ... Respondents
(By
Advocate Shri S. Prakash Shetty,
Additional
Central Govt. Standing Counsel)
- 2 -
O R D E R
Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
This OA is filed on 22-10-2009 under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for claiming the benefit of ACP Scheme, where
the stand of the department is that the same is not available in view of the
voluntary action of the employee.
2. The brief facts are that the applicant
joined the Information and Broad-casting Ministry on 08-12-1976 as an Announcer
and then as News Reader-cum-Translator (NRCT) in 1983 and then again as NRCT
Gr.III with effect from 04-08-1984 through limited selection from among the
staff Artists. All the above categories
were together called staff artists and are contractual posts and are governed
by the terms and conditions of the contract.
3. Under Annexure-A/1, the Department has
introduced a new scheme in the year 1983 which allowed option to remain as
staff Artists under the existing contractual terms or to be treated as
"Artists" under the new scheme. The applicant refers to the
appointment order dated 16-10-1985 which has a retrospective effect from
04-08-1984 (Annexures-A/2 and A/3) as
the beginning of the new contract as "Artist" as per his option.
4. The scheme was further clarified by
letter dated 29.11.1991 (Annexure-A/4) by which the scheme of classification of
Staff Artists of AIR and Doordarshan as Government servants and Artists as
contractual has been recommended and the revised decision introduced, calling
for option once again either to come
over to new scheme as deemed Government
-
3 -
servants
or to continue in their existing contractual terms and conditions as
Artist. The applicant again opted to
remain as Artist.
5. In the meantime, the Government has
been adopting a policy of giving some benefits of regular service to the
contractual employees also and the benefits such as keeping same Recruitment
Rules (Annexure-A/5) and drawing common seniority list, (Annexure-A/6), and
giving same pay as would be obtained from a pay-scale and annual increments.
All these benefits are applicable to these Artists even when they have not
chosen to get absorbed as a Government servant in the department. It is pertinent to note that these benefits
are available as a part of the contractual agreement.
6. That being the case, the applicant
claims that since he is treated on par with the Government employees working as
Government employees in the Akashvani/Doordarshan and is getting all the above
stated benefits, the benefit of ACP scheme must become available to him and
denying the same is virtually creating an artificial discrimination. He claims that the ACP benefits have become
available to many of his juniors who have opted for the 1991 scheme. But, the same has been denied to the
applicant even after 25 years of service in the same post, viz., NRCT-Gr.III.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that this is a very short point that the safety net of the ACP scheme
cannot be denied to him solely on the ground that he is not a regular employee
but only a contractual employee. In
support of his claim, he argued that he is drawing time-bound pay scale under
various Pay Commissions. Further he is
entitled to perks like D.A., H.R.A., C.C.A., Bonus, LTC, Medical facility, and that there is a
-
4 -
common
seniority list governing the applicant as well as the Govt. employees based on
which the promotions are accorded to both the "Artists" and the
government employees. As such, his
juniors in the Gr.III who are Government employees have been given ACP benefit
and his discrimination is arbitrary (Refer Annexure-A/16).
8. When he raised this issue with the
Respondent department, the said department issued Memo No. Ban.19(6)/2009-S,
dated 29.7.2009 as at Annexure-A/11, which is the impugned order. The main
prayer is to quash the said impugned order and to direct the respondents to
grant the 1st and 2nd ACP benefits to the applicant
counting his service from 4-8-1984 and pay the arrears of pay and allowance and
all other benefits from the date of accrual of the same.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents
has argued through the reply statement as well as through oral arguments that
it was a practice in the Department of Information & Broadcasting that
various employees such as Staff Artists, News Readers, Translators, etc. were
taken on a 5 year contractual basis and the contract can be extended upto thte
age of superannuation. However, in 1991,
the Government took a conscious decision and vide DG, AIR, New Delhi, letter
No.18/1/91SVIII, dated 13.12.1991 together with MIB's letter No.45011/
29/91-B(A), dated 29.11.1991 formulated a scheme. This was done after the Hon'ble Supreme Court
order dated 25-04-1988 directing the Govt. to review the earlier scheme of 1983
and allow fresh options to be exercised
Thereafter, the new scheme referred to above dated 13-12-1991 was
prepared. Since the
-
5 -
applicant
has opted out of it by his own choice and has not elected to get absorbed in
the department as a Government servant, and has taken the option to remain a
free lance artist, he will continue to get some benefits on par with the
regular employees, but, cannot claim all the benefits. Hence, the request for giving him the benefit
of the ACP scheme is not maintainable.
10. We have heard both the learned counsels
and considered their written and oral arguments.
11. We agree with the learned counsel for the
Respondents that having opted to remain as a free lance artist, the applicant
cannot claim that all the benefits available to those who opted for getting
absorbed as a Government employee would be available in toto to the
applicant. We agree with the learned
counsel for the respondents that there has to be some trade-off when the applicant
has consciously and deliberately made a choice of remaining a free-lancer and
cannot therefore, claim to be eligible for each and every benefit available to
those who opted to become Government servants.
12. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. AJAY
KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER
(A)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment