news details |
|
|
| Regularization of services could be recognized under policy of govt: DB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 15: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Srinagar Wing comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Mohan Lal holds that the regularization of services could be recognized under a particular Rule/ Policy of the Government and not otherwise. DB further said that there is absolutely no scope for two opinions over it.
Division Bench while allowing the petition filed by Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India and others and set-aside the order of passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for short Tribunal, in OA no. 062/0004 of 2016 titled Saif-ud-din Lone & others v. Union of India and others.
The Tribunal while deciding the OA, in terms of the impugned order, has held that the action of the respondents/ petitioners herein in not regularizing the services of the applicants in the order of seniority and to the extent of vacancies available was uncalled for, and therefore, the respondents were directed to delink the regularization of casuals in Kashmir from the casuals engaged in the rest of the country and regularize the services of the applicants in the order of seniority w.e.f. 2003 against the post of Production Assistant to the extent of available vacancies with all consequential benefits. It has further been directed that the relevant exercise must be carried out within three months. It is stated in the memo of writ petition that the direction for regularization in favour of the respondents/ petitioners therein, apart from being contrary to law is also prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners as it has the effect of getting the demands of all the casual engagees all over the country for similar benefit. Given the nature and functions of the petitioners, it requires to engage Anchors and Presenters on short term basis so that fresh faces are inducted on contractual basis and if the direction of the Tribunal is allowed to operate, it will, result in claims for regularization from all Anchors, Presenters, Producers which would affect the interests of the petitioners.
The petitioners have employed the respondents somewhere in 1990's and they worked according to the order of their engagement as casual assignees; however, their services were not till 2013 when they first approached the Tribunal with OA no. 633-JK-2013 seeking regularization of their services.
DB after hearing both the sides observed that the court is left with one question to answer, i.e. whether the Tribunal was justified to grant the ordered relief in favour of the respondents in absence of any Policy, Scheme, Rule, Statute or any other provision of law, or not? True it is that the respondents have rendered their services for the petitioners in most hostile circumstances and they have successfully managed to run the show for the petitioners probably in lieu of the promises extended by the petitioners for their permanent absorption against the posts held by them and this makes them class a part. But, does it confer upon them a special privilege, being the members of such distinct class, to be granted the relief as awarded by the Tribunal?
DB further observed that the contention of R. A. Jan, senior counsel, that a right has accrued to the respondents for claiming regularization on the basis of the recommendations of the Standing Labour Committee is not well founded as the Standing Labour Committee recommendation cannot be a substitute for the Policy in the shape of Rule or law governing such regularization.
With these observations, DB allowed the petition and set-aside the impugned order and in consequence whereof the OA filed by the respondents is also dismissed. It goes without saying that nothing observed in this judgment shall prevent the petitioners from considering the case of the respondents in terms of the policy presently in operation notified in terms of Circular dated 5th September, 2019, which provides for a mechanism for their permanent absorption in the department. The eligibility criteria, in such, eventuality, shall not form an impediment for the authorities to take a view favorable to the respondents.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
