IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25425 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.612/2002 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA), DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF DOORDARSHAN, MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHRI.S.KUTTAN PILLAI, VADAKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MADANTHACODE, KUZHIMATHICAD (PO), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. K.P.MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KURUSSUMUTTAM, KUNDAMON BHAGOM, PEYAD (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL FOR R1,R2 SRI.S.VISHNU FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.25425/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.612/2002 OF THE C.A.T, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A. DATED 5-3-2003 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE O.A. DATED 3-5-2003 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A. DATED 18-9-2003 EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A.NO.612/02 DATED 23-8-2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 29-12-2008 ISSUED BY PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, NAGPUR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b)TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 30-12-2008 ISSUED BY PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, BHOPAL TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c)TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 31-12-2008 ISSUED BY PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, SILCHAR TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(d)TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 6-1-2009 ISSUED BY PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, HYDERABAD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Respondents in O.A.612/2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, are the petitioners before us. The crux of the issue pertains to the claim made by the respondents herein (original applicants) for regularisation in service in the Doordarshan Kendra as Floor Assistants. This is the seventh round litigation they are either facing or pursuing in respect of the very same subject matter. The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the applicants for relaxation and grant the relief. Aggrieved, respondents in the original application have come up before us in the writ petition. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that in view of the order of the apex court in Annexure A6 (in Ext.P1) in S.L.P(Civil) No.14678/1993, the W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 -:2:- Department can consider the request of the respondents for regularisation only as per the Scheme. Going by the Scheme, the applicants are over aged and hence no relief can be granted to them. However, learned counsel for the respondents-applicants before the Tribunal, submits that in the case of similarly situated, rather situated in a worse condition than that of the applicants, the Department had relaxed the age and given regularisation. In the case of one G.Sreekumar, he has been sailing along with the applicants and while they were facing the litigation before the apex court it was represented before the apex court that the case against Sri.G.Sreekumar was not pressed and thereafter the Department regularised the said G.Sreekumar as per Annexure R2 order in Ext.P2 stating that such case shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases. It is submitted that if the said G.Sreekumar can be given age relaxation by the Ministry, better placed being the applicants, they should also be given the same benefit. Still further it is submitted that going by the very expression used by the Ministry, the case of G.Sreekumar should W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 -:3:- not be treated as a precedent only for future cases, the applicants are co-applicants along with the said G.Sreekumar and hence not future cases. Yet another submission is that in the case of one B.Sreekumar, though the direction by the Central Administrative Tribunal was to extend similar treatment as that of the applicants even before orders of the apex court referred to above, the said Sreekumar was also given relaxation and regularisation in service as per Annexure A7 in Ext.P1. Therefore, the submission is that though there is a direction by the apex court to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the scheme for regularisation, in view of the two instances of B.Sreekumar and G.Sreekumar, whereby the Ministry has given relaxation of the scheme itself, the case of the applicants may also be considered and they may also be given a similar treatment. 3. In the case of B.Sreekumar referred to above, we find that the regularisation in service as Floor Assistant is prior to the order of the Supreme Court and in the case of G.Sreekumar the W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 -:4:- regularisation is after the order of the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter we do not think that the order of the Supreme Court will stand in the way of the Ministry considering the case of the petitioners for a similar treatment to that of B.Sreekumar and G.Sreekumar. But the direction given by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be justified. The Tribunal has issued a positive direction to grant the relief by way of regularisation. Unless the Ministry considers the case of the applicants, they cannot be regularised in service. As we have already noted above, this is the seventh round litigation in the case of the petitioners either facing or pursuing. They have been working as Floor Assistants on contract basis for the last 19 years. One person who is similarly situated and another person situated in a worse factual background have already been regularised in service pursuant to orders passed by the Ministry. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we vacate the positive direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal to grant the applicants the relief of W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 -:5:- regularisation. However, there will be a direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the facts and circumstances referred to by us in this judgment and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, considering also the cases of G.Sreekumar and B.Sreekumar. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C)No.25425 of 2006 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st October, 2009