AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Writ petitioner is a person who is presently serving as Newsreader-cum-translator Grade-III on contract basis with Prasar Bharati. Petitioner has been agitating for securing certain benefits which are otherwise available to regular Government employees also functioning in the very institution. One such benefit sought for by the writ petitioner was extension of the benefit available under what is known as assured career progression scheme [for short ''ACP scheme''] to be put in place by the Central Government to provide some incentive to such of those persons who have been stagnated in the very post for long years without getting any promotion etc.
Writ petitioner has contended that the contract artist like the petitioner is treated on par with the Government employee for several other service conditions and therefore sought for the benefit of extending the ACP scheme also to the petitioner. That having not been provided, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore by filing original application No. 469/2009.
The application was resisted by the respondents and it was pointed out that the benefit of the ACP scheme was available only to regular employees of the organization; that the petitioner had the option to become Government servant which option had been given to him long back but on every occasion he chose to remain contract artist; that even pursuant to the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the year 1990 in the case of ''National Union of all National Union of All India Radio and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and the directions contained the matter had been examined and the petitioner had been given an option to get himself absorbed, but the petitioner chose to opt out for his own justification or reasons to remain as artist rather than employee of the Central Government and the ACP scheme not applicable to such persons, petitioner cannot claim such benefit.
The Tribunal which examined the cause of the writ petitioner found that the petitioner who had the option to get into the main stream had consciously and deliberately chose to remain an artist on contractual basis and was not willing to be considered as Government Servant even as per his option dated 22.5.1992 and therefore the petitioner cannot find fault later to a benefit which was otherwise available to regular employees also to be extended to him. Though the petitioner may be getting some benefit that are available to regular employee, it does not mean that the petitioner can lay claim for benefits that were given to regular employee and therefore rejected the same.
It is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 29.7.2011, the present writ petition.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. S. Sugumaran, learned counsel has vehemently urged that for all practical purposes contract artist are treated on par with the Government employees; that they have been given all benefits including promotions, seniority list maintained as and when pay commission has recommended, they are also given the benefit and when such is the factual position, there is absolutely no reason to deny the benefit of ACP scheme being provided; that even the petitioner is languishing in the same post for the past twenty seven years and therefore the scheme should be extended and benefit given to the petitioner.
Notice had been issued to the respondents. Sri. Prakash Shetty, learned Central Government standing counsel appears for the respondents and submits that whatever the benefits have been given, are extended as per the terms of the contract; that whatever benefits are extended under the contract including some limited type of promotions or upgradations have all been given to the petitioner; that the reliance placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ''national Union of all India Radio [supra] will not confer any benefit as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that it was observations under which the Supreme Court had directed the Central Government to formulate a scheme in respect of such employees and scheme in fact was formulated and option given to the writ petitioner also, but the writ petitioner opted to remain outside the employment of the Central Government.
However, Sri. S. Sugumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on certain observations that such contract employees should not be discriminated in any way.
In the first instance, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of ''National Union of all India Radio [supra], was before the scheme was framed and the Supreme Court also directed the Committee being set up and examine the matter and therefore the observations cannot be taken to be as any law laid down by the Supreme Court. When once the scheme is formulated pursuant to the directions and benefits are given and certain benefits to become Government employee and all entitlements were available to persons like the petitioner, the petitioner chose not to opt. It cannot be said he is still entitled for all benefits which are available to regular Government employees. While the Government examining such conditions can definitely confer such benefits, it is not for courts by way of analogy to direct extension of the benefit.
However, Sri. Sugumaran, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to a note dated 30.4.2004 filed in the Department of Personnel and Training.
We notice that a note or observations on the proposal regarding extension of ACP scheme to contractual employees etc., can neither be considered as order or any directions/notification issued by the Government.
Be that as it may, if the Department of Personnel and Training is keen on extending the benefit, it is open to them to extend the same. Without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed.