IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26-04-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.390 of 2006 Retired All India Radio Staffs Artists Welfare Association, (Regn No.144/1990), No.7/B, North Eda Street, Beeman Nagar, Thiruchirapalli, rep. By its Secretary, Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, All India Radio and Doordharshan, New Delhi. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.32/1/2000/SVIII/207, dated 23.3.2004, and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant pension, together with interest calculated from the date it fell due to the members of the petitioner association, ignoring the cut off date for pension eligibility. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Advocate for Mr.S.S.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.P.Buvaneswari Senior Central Government Counsel O R D E R The writ petition has been filed by the retired All India Radio Staff Artists Welfare Association, which is a registered association (Registration No.144/1990), challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 23.3.2004, refusing to grant pensionary benefits to staff artists, who had retired before 6.3.1982. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It has been further stated that the artists had been engaged by the All India Radio, on contract basis, and such staff artists had been treated as government servants, as per the decision of the Allahabad High Court, dated 12.7.1974, which had been confirmed by the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.384 of 1977, in Union of India Vs. M.A.Choudhary. It has been further stated that the members of the petitioner association are artists, who had retired from service prior to the year, 1982. 3. On 29.11.1991, the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, had issued a letter stating that the staff artists,who were in service, as on 6.3.1982, and who had been appointed thereafter, would be deemed to be government servants. The scheme for drawing of retirement benefits and pension was confined only to those artists, who had retired after 6.3.1982. The Supreme Court of India, in C.W.P.No.13636 of 1983 and C.W.P.No.1170 of 1984, reported in National Union of AIR V. Union of India (1990(3) SCC 596), had taken on record the Draft Scheme presented before the Court, by the Ministry and had directed the Union of India to constitute a High Power Committee to look into the objections and to take a final decision, within a period of six months. While so, a letter, dated 1.4.1992, had been issued on behalf of the Director General, the second respondent informing that the High Power Committee had accepted the cut off date of 6.3.1982 and therefore, no pension could be granted to those staff artists, who had retired before 6.3.1982. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner association had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.6377 of 1982, to direct the respondents to grant pension to the members of the petitioner association, with interest, without adhering to the cut off date which had been fixed, as 6.3.1982. In spite of a direction having been issued by this Court, on 12.7.2001, to consider the claims of the members of the petitioner association, on a case to case basis, sympathetically, the second respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 23.3.2004, reiterating the earlier stand taken by the committee, denying the grant of pensionary benefits to the staff artists, who had retired before 6.3.1982. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the classification based on the cut off date fixed as 6.3.1982 is not based on an intelligible differentia and it does not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the scheme. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India (1983(1) LLJ 103). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. He had further submitted that in spite of the Supreme Court stating that several artists should be considered as government servants the members of the petitioner association, who had retired from service prior to 6.3.1982, had not been given the option to get the retirement benefits, including the pension, under the pension scheme applicable to those who were in service, as on 6.3.1982, and those who had retired thereafter. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the members of the petitioner association, who had retired from service prior to 6.3.1982, had opted out of the pension scheme. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner association had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.6337 of 1992, with a similar prayer, as in the present writ petition. This Court, by its order, dated 12.7.2001, had stated that it would be open to the members of the petitioner association to make further representations, and on such representations being made the respondents shall consider the claim of the members of the petitioner association, on a case to case basis, sympathetically. 8. It has been further stated that pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, on 5.4.1990, in National Union of AIR V. Union of India (1990(3) SCC 596), a High Power Committee, headed by the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, with the Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor and Joint Secretary (Broadcasting), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Director General, All India Radio, Director General, Doordarshan and the representatives of the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Finance, D.O.P.and T, Department of Pension and others, as its representatives, had been constituted. 9. The High Power committee had examined all the issues raised by the National Union of All India Radio Staff Artists for pensionary benefits to be granted to those staff artists, who had retired prior to 6.3.1982. The High Power Committee had found that the staff artists, who had retired before 6.3.1982, had availed the benefits of contributory provident fund, extension in service beyond the age of 58 years, as well as certain other benefits, which were not available to the regular government servants. Therefore, the High Power Committee did not recommend the grant of pensionary benefits to the staff artists, who had retired before 6.3.1982. As per the directions issued by this Court, on 12.7.2001, in W.P.No.6337 of 1992, a speaking order, dated 23.3.2004, had been issued to the petitioner in the said writ petition, including the secretary of the retired staff artists welfare association. It had also been stated that the recommendations made by the High Power Committee had been accepted by the Government of India. 10. It had also been stated that the Central Administrative https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, Mumbai, had dismissed an original application, in O.A.No.474 of 2000, by its order, dated 10.12.2001, observing that the said application had been filed, belatedly, after nearly nine years from the date of the issuance of the Government order, dated 29.11.1991, issued by the Ministry of Information and broadcasting, Government of India, treating the staff artists as Government servants. Therefore, the classification of staff artists and the granting of pensionary benefits to those who were in service, as on 6.3.1982 and who had retired thereafter cannot be held to be arbitrary and invalid, as alleged by the petitioner. 11. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner association, in the present writ petition. 12. It is seen that a High Power committee had been constituted consisting of technically qualified persons, pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, in National Union of AIR V. Union of India (1990(3) SCC 596). The High Power committee had recommended that staff artists, who had retired prior to 6.3.1982, would not be entitled to receive pensionary benefits, as they had already availed the benefits of contributory provident fund, extension of service beyond the age of 58 years and certain other benefits that were not made available to regular government servants. Therefore, the classification of staff artists into two separate categories fixing the cut off date as 6.3.1982, for granting the pensionary benefits cannot be said to be arbitrary, or invalid. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India (1983(1) LLJ 103) and others, relied on by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it is found that the classification of the staff artists is based on an intelligible differentia, as seen from the report of the High Power Committee. 13. It is also seen that the recommendations made by the High Power Committee had been accepted by the Government of India and the recommendations had also been implemented. The petitioner has not challenged the recommendations made by the High Power Committee, before the appropriate forum or the authority, till date. It is only the order of the second respondent, dated 23.3.2004, which is a reply issued to a representation, dated 6.2.2002, addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Director General, All India Radio, submitted by one V.Chellammal, has been challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. The said reply had been issued based on the recommendations made by the High Power Committee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Further, the necessary details and the particulars of the individual members of the petitioner association have not been produced before this Court to consider their claims, on a case to case basis, especially, when such claims have been made, belatedly. Since, a policy decision had already been taken by the Government of India on an all India basis, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue such directions, as prayed for by the petitioner association, which may have far reaching financial consequences. Such issues cannot be decided merely on sympathetic grounds. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the claims made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, All India Radio and Doordharshan, New Delhi. +1cc to Senior Counsel for Central Govt. SR 28565 +1cc to Mr.K.Sudaliakannu, Advocate Sr 29066 NR(CO) km/25.5. Writ Petition No.390 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/