Union of India v. E Krishna Rao

1 The appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 20 March 2014. The High Court rejected a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] directing the appellants to provide to the Respondents all benefits of service and to consider their cases for promotions in accordance with the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990.[2] The “Tribunal” The Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990 are referred to in this judgment as the Rules.

2 The First Respondent was engaged as a TV News Correspondent on contract for a period of five years on 6 August 1988. The second Respondent was engaged as a TV Assistant News Correspondent on contract on 12 August 1988. The Rules came into effect on 5 November 1990. They did not have a specific provision for the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent. The Rules define the expression ‘departmental candidates’ thus: “(c) “Departmental Candidates” means- “(i) 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 and (ii)All officers appointed on regular basis to the post of video executive in Doordarshan in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500;” Rule 6, which provides for the initial constitution of the service, reads thus:

3 Junior Administrative Grade Director/ Controller 44 15 Rs. 3700- 125- 4700- 150-5000 4 Senior Time Scale Deputy Director/ Deputy Controller 130 32 Rs. 3000- 100- 3500- 125-4500

5 Junior Time scale Programme Officer 144 37 Rs. 2200- 75-2800- EB-100- Total 328 95 Schedule II provides for the Programme Production Cadre.

3 On 29 November 2011, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sought options from the Respondents on whether they desired to be treated as government servants or whether they wished to continue as contractual employees. The First Respondent opted to be treated as a government servant. On 21 March 1992, the Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad by a Memorandum bearing no. TVH / 23 (6) 92-S) declared the First Respondent as a government servant with effect from 31 March 1992. The Memorandum reads thus: “MEMORANDUM The option exercised by Shri E KRISHNA RAO in the category of T. V. NEWS CORRESPONDENT has been considered. Accordingly Shri E KRISHNA RAO, Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad, has been declared as Government Servant with effect from 6.8.88 Vide Director General letter No. 45011/29/91 Bd (R) dt. 29.11.91. 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 6.8.88. The post of Staff Artists in the category of T.V. NEWS CORRESPONDENT which was hitherto held by Shri E KRISHNA RAO is here by converted into Civil post with effect from 6.8.88 without change of designation. The fee scales in which She/he is employed will from 6.8.88 be considered as pay scales of the corresponding post and the fee drawn by him/her will be the pay drawn by him/her with effect from 6.8.88. This post would be treated to have been created as temporary post with effect from 6.8.88 to be converted into permanent post in due course in accordance with the prescribed procedure. For Director.” Administrative Officer” The Memorandum states that all the rules/regulations and benefits, including pensionary benefits, age of retirement etc., which are applicable to regular government servants, would also apply to the First Respondent with effect from 6 August 1988, thereby terminating the contract which he had entered into at the time of his recruitment. The Second Respondent was similarly declared to be a government servant.

4 The Respondents were not given any promotion for twelve years. Aggrieved by this, they filed OA 916 of 1999 and OA 1010 of 1999 before the CAT, claiming that they had not received any promotion, as they were not treated as members of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service by the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the applications of the Respondents and directed the government to grant them all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases for promotion.

5 The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. They submitted that since the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent have not been included in the Rules, the Respondents cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade (selection grade) and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction.

6 The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that acceptance by the Respondents of benefits under the Annual Career Progression scheme did not disentitle them to get equivalent pay scales. The High Court examined the meaning of the expression ‘departmental candidate’ in Rule 2 (c) alongwith Rule 6 and Note 3 of Schedule I. The High Court held: “A bare perusal of above definition would clearly go to show that the person who holds posts on regular basis can also be treaded as “department candidate”. It is not in dispute before this Court that by virtue of proceedings dated 31 March 1992 the applicants were declared as Government Servants with retrospective effect from 6 August 1988 and 12 August 1988 respectively. Therefore the applicants fit into the definition of “department 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 sub-rules (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 dates of commencement of these Rules, be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the Service.” Hence, the High Court held that the Respondents fulfill the definition of a departmental candidate under section 2(c) of the Rules. Rule 6 provides that subject to the provisions of sub- rules (2), (3) and (4), all departmental candidates holding posts on a 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 the Rules, be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the Service. The High Court has also relied on Note 3 of Schedule I to the Rules, under which posts sanctioned for various schemes in All India Radio and Doordarshan after 1 January 1985 are deemed to have been included in the service and such posts shall be added to the strength of the cadre.

7 Intervention Applications have been filed. The intervenors state that they fall in the same category as the First and Second Respondents and hence the Rules should also apply to them. It was also submitted that the Petitioner offered promotion to the First and Second Respondents and to similar persons after a probation of 2 years, but even after its completion they were not promoted. The Intervenors have also submitted in their written submissions that two days after the final hearing on 9 August 2018, the appellants published a Gazette notification online showing truncated Recruitment Rules 2014 that exclude the Group A posts of TV Assistant News Correspondents to prevent the affected parties from benefitting.

8 On hearing the submissions made by the Petitioner and the Respondents, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High court are correct in their findings and conclusions.

9 Rule 6 which provides for the initial constitution of the service stipulates that from the date of the commencement of the Rules, departmental candidates who held posts on a regular basis in the stipulated pay scales would be deemed to have been appointed to corresponding posts and grades in the service. Rule 2(c) provides for the definition of the expression “departmental candidates”. The effect of Note 3 to Schedule I is that posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985 in All India Radio and Doordarshan would be deemed to have been included in the service and will be added to the strength shown therein. The High Court has observed that on the date of the commencement of the Rules, the pay scales of the applicants were Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 2200-4000 respectively. As a result of the deeming provision in Note 3, it was held that they would be appointed to corresponding posts and grades in service. This finding is unexceptionable. It was not in dispute before the High Court that the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent were regular sanctioned posts. Based on this, it was held that having due regard to Rule 6 read with Rule 2(c) and Note 3 of Schedule I, the posts held by the Respondents shall be deemed to have been included in the service. This interpretation of the High Court is borne out by the Rules. Once they were declared to be government servants, it would be unfair and inequitable to deny to them all the benefits, including of pay scales and other conditions of service applicable to posts in the equivalent pay scale.

10 While affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, we clarify that