Dismissed

Union of India v. E.Krishna Rao

Telangana HC20 Mar 2014WP/5471/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed three writ petitions challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal that allowed non-permanent news correspondents to be deemed employees under the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, based on pay scale equivalence and regularity of service.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed challenging the Tribunal's order allowing promotion and deeming employees under the IBPS Rules were dismissed.

Union of India Vs E.Krishna Rao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.5471, 5712 and 14673 of 2001

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

Writ petition Nos.5471 and 5712 of 2001 are filed challenging the common order dated 08-11-2000 in O.A.Nos.916 and 1010 of 1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereunder and whereby the applications filed by the respondents herein/applicants in the O.As., were allowed directing the petitioners herein/ respondents in the said O.As., that the respondents herein shall be considered to be inducted into the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 (for short, ‘the IBPS Rules, 1990’) and provide them all the benefits of service and to consider the cases of the respondents herein for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) in accordance with their experience, eligibility and suitability. Whereas Writ Petition No.14673 of 2001 is filed by the Programme Staff Association of All India Radio and Dooradarshan seeking leave of this Court challenging the common order dated 08-11-2000 in O.A.Nos.916 and 1010 of 1999.

¶6

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.

¶7

3. The short point involved in these writ petitions is whether the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent shall be deemed to have been included in IBPS Rules, 1990.

¶8

4. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.5471 of 2001 and 5472 of 2001 are respondents and the respondents in the above writ petitions are applicants, in the Original Application before the Tribunal. For better appreciation, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶9

5. All the facts are not in dispute. One of the applicants E. Krishna Rao was appointed as T.V. News Correspondent on contract basis for a period of five years on 06-08-1988. Similarly, V. Ramakanth was appointed as T.V. Assistant News Correspondent on contract basis on 12-08-1988. It is not in dispute before this Court that the Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.TVH/23(6)92-S, dated 31-03-1992 has declared

¶10

E. Krishna Rao, T.V. News Correspondent as a Government Servant with effect from 06-08-1988. In that Memorandum it is made clear that all the existing rules/regulations and benefits, including pensionary benefits, the age for retirement etc., which are applicable to the regular Civil Government Servants will be applicable to him/her. Consequently, the contract entered into with him/her will stand terminated with effect from 06-08-1988. Similarly, V. Ramakanth was also declared as Government Servant.

¶11

6. In the year 1990, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, promulgated the IBPS Rules, 1990. The Rules came into effect from 05-11-1990 as it was published in the official Gazette of Government of India. Admittedly, the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and the T.V. Assistant News Correspondent have

¶12

not been shown in these Rules. These posts have also not been shown as a feeder category for the next higher category viz., Junior Administrative Grade.

¶13

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that since the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and the T.V. Assistant News Correspondent have not been included in Rules, 1990, the applicants cannot be considered for promotion to the posts of Junior Administrative Grade (selection grade) and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue such a direction. Hence, it is illegal.

¶14

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that since the applicants were holding the posts on regular basis, they are deemed to have been included in the IBPS Rules, 1990 and therefore, holding of the pay scale of applicants which is equivalent to the pay scales of posts mentioned in the Schedule-I shall have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of giving promotion and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶15

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.14673 of 2001 stated that the IBPS Rules, 1990 have no application but the case of the applicants would be governed by Indian Information Service Rules. There is no factual foundation as to how the Indian Information Service Rules would be applicable to the case of applicants. The said contention raised is without merit. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India appearing for the petitioners contended that the IBPS Rules, 1990 are applicable to the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent.

¶16

10. The basis of judicial review is common law. When subjecting some administrative act or order to judicial review, the Court is concerned with its legality is it within the limits of the powers granted. It is fundamental mechanism for keeping public authorities within due bounds and for upholding the rule of law. For the writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be invoked when the judicial or quasi judicial authority acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in contravention of rules of natural justice or commits an error apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal having considered each and every aspect of the case came to the conclusion that simply because the applicants have accepted Annual Career Progression Scheme that does not disentitle them to give equivalent pay scale as mentioned in the pay scales in the IBPS Rules, 1990. It is not in dispute before this Court that the pay scale of one of the applicants is Rs.3000-4500/and the other applicant pay scale is Rs.2200-4000/-. The first pay scale is equivalent to the Senior Time Scale Deputy Director/Deputy Controller, which is mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rules, 1990. Similarly, the other pay scale is equivalent to the Junior Time Scale Deputy Director/Programme Officer, which is mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rules, 1990.

¶17

11. Though the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent have not been specifically mentioned in the IBPS Rules, 1990, the pay scales of other cadres have been mentioned. By virtue of these Rules whether these two category posts have to be included in certain category of posts as mentioned in IBPS Rules by virtue of necessary implication. For that purpose, meaning of the ‘departmental candidate’ as explained in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1990 along with Rule 6 and Note 3 of the

¶18

Schedule-I of the Rules, 1990, have to be looked into. The “departmental candidate” means 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.

¶19

12. A bare perusal of above definition would clearly go to show that the person who holds posts on regular basis can also be treated as “departmental candidate”. It is not in dispute before this Court that by virtue of proceedings dated 31-03-1992 the applicants were declared as Government Servants with retrospective effect from 06-08-1988 and 12-08-1988 respectively. Therefore, the applicants fit into the definition of “departmental candidate” as defined under Section 2 (c) of the IBPS Rules, 1990. Rule 6 of the IBPS Rules is that subject to the provisions of subrules (2), (3) and (4) all departmental candidates holding posts on 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 Services.

¶20

13. It is not in dispute that one of the applicant’s pay scale is Rs.3000-4500 and another applicant’s pay scale is Rs.2200-4000 by the date of commencement of the Rules, 1990. So, when there is a deeming provision in the IBPS Rules, 1990, they shall be appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the service, there is no ambiguity in the Rules so as to take a different view. When there is no ambiguity and the plain meaning of the Rule would disclose that the departmental candidates holding a

¶21

particular pay scale shall be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts, by virtue of necessary implication, the first applicant is deemed to have been appointed as the Senior Time Scale Deputy Director/Deputy Controller and the second applicant is deemed to have been appointed as the Junior Time Scale Deputy Director/Programme Officer. Note 3 of Schedule-I of the Rules, 1990 also clarifies the same, which reads as follows:

¶22

“The number of posts sanctioned for various schemes after 1- 1-1985 in All India Radio and Doordarshan will be deemed to have been included in the service and such posts will be added to the strength shown therein.”

¶23

14. It is not in dispute before this Court that the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent are regular sanctioned posts by the Government. So, by virtue of this Note, those posts shall be deemed to have been added in the strength shown in IBPS Rules, 1990. So, when the Note 3 and the Rule 6 coupled with Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1990 have to be read in a juxtaposition, it is clear that the posts holding by applicants shall be deemed to have been included in the pay scale equivalent to the posts mentioned in the IBPS Rules, 1990. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in giving such a finding. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. Basing on this rule position only, the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. There is no perverse finding given by the Tribunal so as to call for interference. The findings are based upon proper interpretation of Rules and also the material available on record. So, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court and hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶24

15. In view of the fact that the applicants were already received the benefits under Annual Career Progression (ACP) Scheme,

¶25

they cannot claim total benefit by virtue of allowing the O.As. The benefits, if any, received under the ACP Scheme shall have to be deducted or adjusted while considering their cases in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal.

¶26

16. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶27

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶28

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS March 20, 2014 PN

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶30

W.P.Nos.5471, 5712 and 14673 of 2001

¶31

March 20, 2014

¶32

Union of India v. E.Krishna Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. E.Krishna Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Muddapati Ravi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr.B.Satyanarayana Raju

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs R.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Bhagvan Das

The General Manager, Vs Shaik Gaffar

Programme Staff Association of Air and Doordarshan Vs E.Kriashna Rao

Union of India Vs Shri v.Ramakanth