IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6579 of 2006 Jagmohan Prasad Sinha, son of Late Bishwanath Prasad, resident of village & P.O. Dhanahara,Via Kachhwan, District Rohtas (Sasaram), Bihar, at present address C/O. Sri R. K. Sinha, A.I.R. Colony, Phase II, Quarter No. B/5,Chhajjubagh, Patna – 1. Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastry Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament Street, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 4. The Station Director, All India Radio, Ratu Road, Ranchi. 5. The Station Director, All India Radio, Bhagalpur (Bihar). 6. The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. M. P. Dixit, Nityanand Mishra & S. K. Dixit. For the Respondents 1 to 5: Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, C.G.C. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 22nd October, 2008. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th April, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna whereby the petitioner‟s Original Application for - 2 - direction to the respondents to regularize his services as Casual Production Assistant in All India Radio has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as Production Assistant on monthly contract basis by All India Radio through open advertisement after passing the prescribed test followed by the Viva Voce in the year 1980. He claims to have completed 72 days or more service in each calendar year from 1981 to 1994. A scheme for regularization of Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants came to be framed by the All India Radio. Based on that, the petitioner claimed his regularization which came to be rejected on 7th August, 2000. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application (O.A. No. 199 of 2001) for quashing the order dated 7th August, 2000 whereby his claim for regularization as Casual Production Assistant came to be rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 22nd October, 2002 directed the authorities of the All India Radio to consider his case for regularization of service as Production Assistant by giving him the benefit of the scheme after taking into consideration other eligibility criteria as per the rules applicable and after verifying the relevant documents and pass an appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The concerned authority re-considered the petitioner‟s claim for regularization of his services as Production Assistant in the light of the direction given by the Central - 3 - Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 22nd October, 2002 and by communication dated 14th July, 2003 the petitioner was informed that there was no justification to accede to his request for regularization and, accordingly, his request for regularization of service came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner challenged the communication (Order dated 14th July, 2003) by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal again. The Tribunal considered the matter and after hearing the parties dismissed the Original Application by an order dated 4th April, 2006. As noticed above, it is from this order that the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. The scheme for regularization of Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants in the All India Radio was framed pursuant to the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi given on 18th September, 1992 in the matter of Suresh Sharma & Others Vs. Union of India (O.A. No. 822 of 1991). The said scheme has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-2 which reads thus: “1. This Scheme would be applicable to all those casual artists who were engaged on casual/assignment basis as Production Assistants and General Assistants upto 31.12.1991 and were on the rolls of All India Radio though they may not be in service now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are engaged on casual/assignment basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration 2. Only those casual artists who have been engaged as Production Assistants and General Assistants for an aggregate period of 72 days in a year (calendar year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken period in between the engagement and dis-engagement - 4 - will be ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance sheets or Q-sheets. 3. Separate Eligibility Lists will be prepared for these posts, station-wise, depending upon the length of service of casual artists. They will be considered for regularization in order of their seniority against the available vacancies in that particular station. The seniority would be determined from the date of their initial engagement by the Station. 4. The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one station will have no right for claiming regularization in another Station as Production Assistant in a Group „C” post and the selection is made station- wise. 5. The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should possess the requisite education qualification and/or experience as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules or other administrative instructions (in the absence of Recruitment Rules) existing or the post when the casual artist was initially engaged. 6. The upper age limit would be relaxed to the extent of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time of regularization, A minimum of 72 days service in the aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one year‟s service rendered for this purpose. The service rendered for less than 72 days in a year will not qualify for age relaxation. 7. The regularization of Casual Artists would be from a prospective date and the Casual Artists on the eligibility panel who fall to qualify for regularization in accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions issued thereunder for the post, shall be removed from the panel. 8. If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a misconduct and the same is proved after giving a reasonable opportunity (of being heard), his name would be removed from the eligibility panel and he would not be eligible for regularization. 9. Till all the Casual Artists in the categories of Production Assistant and General Assistant eligible for regularization at a Station are regularised, no fresh recruitment would be resorted to by the Station concerned. This restriction would not be applicable to a Station or category of Staff Artists where no eligibility panel of Casual Artists exists. In other words, if a station has a panel of eligible Casual Artists in the category of Production Assistant and General Assistant, the above restriction on fresh recruitment would be applicable in - 5 - respect of this category only. Similarly, this restriction on fresh recruitment would not be applicable in respect of those stations which have no panel of eligible Casual Artists.” 5. A bare look at the afore-quoted scheme would show that it was made applicable to Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants who were engaged upto 31st December, 1991 and were in the All India Radio on that date, though they may have been dis-engaged thereafter. Inter alia, pre-requisite eligibility under the scheme is that such Casual Artists must have been engaged as Production Assistant for an aggregate period of 72 days in a year which is to be computed on the basis of actual working days and upper age limit provided in the service rules. That the upper age limit prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is 30 years is not in dispute. The scheme provides for relaxation of upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by such Casual Production Assistant at the time of regularization. It further provides that a minimum 72 days service in aggregate in one year shall be treated as one year service for the purpose of relaxation of upper age limit. Pertinently, it provides that the persons who are in the eligibility panel of one Station will have no right for claiming regularization in another Station as Production Assistant in a Group „C‟ post when the selection is made station-wise. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid scheme, we shall now examine as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for regularization of his service as Casual Production - 6 - Assistant. 7. As noticed above, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he worked as a Production Assistant on monthly contract basis since 1st August, 1981 to 1994; in each calendar year he completed 72 days or more. The facts relating to his posting during this period have not been averred in the writ petition. We asked the counsel for the petitioner to show us the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It became necessary because copy of the Original Application has not been annexed with the writ petition. However, he submitted that the Original Application was not available with him. It is true that a chart has been annexed (Annexure-1 series) by the petitioner indicating details of engagement yearwise (except the years 1982, 1983, 1992 and 1993) as Casual Production Assistant. The chart does indicate that he has worked for 72 days in the year from 1981 to 1994, each year at different Stations except the years 1982, 1983, 1992 and 1993. That the petitioner had already crossed the upper age limit i.e. 30 years on the date of coming into force of the scheme is not in dispute. In the entire writ petition the petitioner has not disclosed his date of birth although in paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated that presently he is more than 49 years old and in the order of the Tribunal his date of birth has been stated as 16th January, 1955. That the cut off date of scheme of regularization is 24th May, 1995 which has been noticed by the Tribunal in the order - 7 - has not been specifically denied by the petitioner. The Tribunal has recorded that on the cut off date, the applicant was aged 40 years 4 months and 8 days. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. It would be, thus, seen that on the cut off date i.e. 24.5.1995, the petitioner was overage by ten years and needed relaxation to that extent. There is nothing on record to indicate that at one Station he has remained for ten years by working 72 days in each of these years. Clauses 4 and 6 of the scheme read together and the facts noticed above would show that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 8. Counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the scheme was applicable to those casual Artists who had worked upto 31st December, 1991. Therefore, the cut off date must be treated to be 31st December, 1991 and not 24th May, 1995 and that by treating that cut off date his age as on 31st December, 1991 was 36 years 11 months and 15 days and, therefore, relaxation is needed only for six years 11 months and 15 days and not ten years. The very fact that the scheme provides for cut off date for regularization to be 24th May, 1995; obviously that date has to be considered as the relevant date for finding out as to whether the petitioner was eligible under the scheme is made out or not. Since there is no pleading nor any material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner has worked for 72 days in each calendar year for ten years at one Station, he would not be entitled to any relaxation under the scheme. - 8 - 9. Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Basundhara Singh. The Tribunal itself has found that the case of Smt. Basundhara Singh is not attracted in the facts of the present case. Besides that we have independently examined whether the petitioner fulfills the eligibility for regularization of Casual Production Assistant under the scheme and we are constrained to hold that he has failed to establish that. 10. In this view of the matter, we find no justification to interfere with the Tribunal‟s order. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-