AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant retired from the service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, BSNL) as AGM on 30.06.2010. He states that he has been appointed on contractual basis by the Doordarshan w.e.f. 22.02.2012 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, and that it was enhanced to Rs.22,000/- w.e.f. 09.07.2015.
The applicant submitted several representations stating that the Doordarshan framed policy w.e.f. 05.10.2012 providing for payment of consolidated salary to the retired persons engaged in Doordarshan on the basis of last drawn pay + available DA, and the same has not been extended to him. It is stated that through an order dated 29.04.2015, his remuneration has been revised from Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 33,000/- w.e.f. 01.10.2013. The grievance of the applicant is that the revision of remuneration ought to have been w.e.f. 05.10.2012, i.e., the date on which the policy was framed.
The OA has undergone several adjournments but the respondents did not file any counter affidavit.
We heard the applicant who argued his case in person and Shri T. Rajat Krishna for Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents at length.
The applicant vehemently contends that he has been engaged by Doordarshan on contractual basis w.e.f. 22.02.2012. He is not able to spell out either the designation or the condition of the contract. In the absence of such particulars, it becomes difficult for us to determine the rights of the applicant and the corresponding obligation of the Doordarshan. A perusal of the order dated 09.07.2015 discloses that the remuneration of the contractual employees was enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22000/- per month, and the applicant is one of the beneficiaries.
It is no doubt true that the Doordarshan framed a policy on 05.10.2012 providing for payment of last drawn pay + available DA to the retired employees engaged by them. This policy came into force after the applicant joined the organisation. The benefit thereof was extended to him w.e.f. 01.10.2013. Even a perusal of various orders that are filed by the applicant discloses that the state of affairs in the Doordarshan was almost in a highly disorganised manner, and hardly there is any consistency or application of the relevant provisions. Adhocism became the order of the day.
Our effort to ascertain the rights of the applicant is facing two road blocks. The first is that the applicant himself did not place before us the order of appointment which naturally would contain conditions of service. The second is that the policy in Doordarshan itself is not consistent, and it was operating almost on individual basis.
At any rate, the applicant does not have any right comparable to that of a regular employee. In case, he is not satisfied with the terms and extracts of implied contract, the only course open to him was to quit the assignment.
We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.