The Department was in the process of reviewing the entire promotions of PEXs to the post of ASD from 1982 to 1989 based on a directive of the J&K High Court.

The Department was  in this review DPC planning to allocate vacancies of PEXs and Producers in the wrong ratio of 1:1.

 This was contested by AUPO in court in December 2000  and the Department was forced to agree that what they had done for 20 odd years was wrong and that the proper  ratio between PEXs and Producers based on their numbers would be maintained.

 This was AUPOs first major victory to secure justice for the PEX cadre.(The ratio was accepted by the Dept. in  a  Speaking Order/letter by Secretary I&B to Convenor AUPO in March 2001). But for AUPOs victory the damage/casualties to the PEX cadre would have been heavy.

 AUPO then  approached the Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi again stating  that Secretary I&Bs letter/speaking order  clearly indicated  that  besides ratio, other statutory rules were being flouted to favour the Producers.

 i.e. Allocation of vacancies were being made to Producers from 1982 , whereas no allocation of vacancies can be before the statutory rules come into being on 23.10.1984.

 5yrs eligibility in the grade of PEX  are required as per rules  for promotion to the grade of ASD. (The Producers were encadered into the grade of PEX only on the basis of the statutory rules of 23.10.1984. Hence no Producer  can be in any way eligible for any ASD post before  23.10. 1989.)

 The rules and various supreme court judgments also do not make any provision for computing contractual service/nongovernmental service for calculating eligibility.

The rules also clearly indicate that erstwhile contractual staff artists have to be screened by the UPSC before encaderment  in the grade of  PEX. Hence the date of screening becomes vital.

DEPARTMENTS STANCE 

The Department claimed that they were merely trying to follow the J&K Judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. (In actuality the J&K High Court had opnly asked to identify ASD Posts from 1982 to 1989 and do the review DPC as per statutory rules and eligibility).

 The Department stated that there was a contempt case proceeding against Secretary I&B/CEO for delaying the DPC and that the J&K High Court had issued a nonbailable warrant.

INTERIM RELIEF

The Court however gave an interim relief to AUPO. i.e The Court permitted the Dept. to conduct the DPC but restricted it from announcing the results.

COURT DIRECTS PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AUPO  apprised the court that the Department was inflating the number of Producers to give undue advantage to Producers while calculating ratio. The Court on  AUPOs  request directed  the Department to produce the documents related to screening and number of  eligible staff artists.

The Department after six months and 10 adjournments claimed that they had NO DOCUMENTS.

VACATION OF INTERIM STAY

This interim stay banning the publishing of results  continued for nearly two years during which period AUPO  repeatedly apprised those in the PEX Cadre of the benefits that would accrue to them if we win this legal battle. AUPO also warned the PEXs cadre that

Not only had they lost in the past but  more losses would follow if AUPO was unable to continue with the Court Case.

This interim stay was vacated on 22^nd January 2002. Our O.A has been dismissed. Reasons  will follow. The Courts point of view as elaborated during the final hearing is given below. We have yet to receive the official order.

THE COURTs POINT OF VIEW

The basic arguments orally brought up by the court was that there was a contempt pending in the J&K High Court, and CAT would not like to play the role of  policing the DPC and preventing the crime if any, but would only decide once the statutory rules were  actually flouted and evidence was produced before it. This means that wrong reversions will first take place and then we have to fight to regain our lost positions.

NET RESULT AS OF NOW

Technically this is a battle that AUPO and the PEX cadre cannot lose ( provided  the battle is continued) since we are only asking for the statutory rules and eligibility conditions prescribed  to be followed .

 The vacation of the interim stay will however  immediately result in reversions in the PEX cadre. The Producers will once again be unduly benefited.

This is because the Dept. is allocating posts to Producers even before the statutory rules of 1984 come into being. Eligibility of 5 years is being ignored. Their non governmental contractual service is being taken into account.

As of today many junior Producers are already serving on promotion in ranks/grades higher than their seniors belonging to Programme executive cadre. 

The flouting of the statutory rules would once again wrongfully result in reversions on the side of PEXs.

 Many Programme executives promoted as ASD from 1982-84 and are now holding very senior positions such as DDG will be reverted.

This will cause a cascading effect and cause further reversions down the line in the PEX cadre affecting every Programme executive of 1974 to the present.

If AUPO had not been able to rectify the wrong 1:1 ratio,  the damage to the PEX cadre would have been enormous.

AUPOS PLAN OF ACTION

AUPO will continue to spearhead the battle for justice for the PEX cadre. We call upon all Programme executives from 1974 onwards (both UPSC recruits and those promoted from the cadre of TREX) to come forward and rally under AUPO and support this battle which AUPO is fighting on their behalf.

AUPO will not let the set back of the vacation of interim stay (leading to announcement of DPC results and reversions in PEX cadre affect us).

AUPO will continue this battle to the High Court/Supreme Court) with the support of the entire PEX cadre. The dignity of the entire PEX cadre is in AUPOs hands and we will not lose that dignity but shall fight to the best of our ability.

ROLE OF THE PSA

AUPO has explained the entire case to the PSAs  past and present office bearers. Our case files were shown to them  and  can be accessed by anybody as we have nothing to hide.

  The PSAs role as an association was to ensure that the rules have to be followed and if there were members in its organisation from both the PEXs and Producers neither should unjustly suffer. The PSA is very much aware that the PEXs have suffered and many of them are now serving under those who joined in a contractual capacity after them.

 However, the PSA has been silently watch AUPO fight for implementation of statutory rules from the sidelines. The PSA is mortally afraid of offending the Producers who are also their members. Every Programme Executive(from 1974 onwards)  should now come out and ask the PSA to explain their stance.

Senior office bearers of the PSA who are also holding pivotal supervisory  positions in administration will find it difficult in future to  explain their role in this fiasco.

They will have to explain why those who have entered the system  at the levels of PEX in the period 1974 to 1980 , are being superceded by some contract employees who were made Govt. servant in 1982 ; and then encadered in the grade of PEX   by the rules of 23.10.1984.

 They supersede even PEXs who cleared the UPSC thrice as  PEX, ASD and Station Director .

 This is not a thing of the past as the PSA is trying to mislead the PEX cadre into believing. These reversions are a thing of the present. They are actually happening. Those who are not reverted will find that they will serve under their juniors who entered the system as contractual staff.  After every agitation where the PSA has promised us promotions, we  have found that our positions in the seniority list have only come down.

 REGULARISATION  ???

 The call for regularisation appears attractive but the fact is that regularisation does not offer any protection against reversion. We already are aware that our Seniors from the Programme executive cadre who had six/seven years service as regular ASDs and ad-hoc DDP were reverted to ad-hoc JTS in year 2000. So there is no reason to imagine that regularisation can prevent reversions.

 AUPOs second case : PEXs CLAIM FOR JTS PRODUCTION

In AUPOs second case, AUPO is fighting for the PEXs right for JTS Production. The PEXs who have been recruited for both Management and Production have the option as per IBPS Rules for both streams and we have to be given our genuine due.

 All over the country the PEXs have  always been , and  are producing programmes  both in AIR and Doordarshan. How then have we been denied our legitimate due?

 PSA STANCE

 For Years, the PSA has taken the stance that PEXs are not eligible for Production. PSA office bearers in the past made it clear that in any case once the entire Producers were promoted the PEXs can take the production posts.

In 2000 many ASDs/Ad-hoc DDPs  from the PEX cadre were reverted to ad-hoc JTS  only because they were not considered for JTS production. Today they are serving under many contractual staff who even jopined contractual service after them.

AUPO started a legal battle for JTS Production. The PSA   did nothing to protect the genuine greviances of the PEXs. They continued to maintain that PEXs were not eligible for JTS Production.

 The PSA then tried to  convert the  JTS production posts to Management.

The PSA found that all JTS Production posts could get lapsed and would never get filled  because of their stance.

 This year (2003), the PSA finally after 13 years has changed their stance and adopted AUPOs stance that PEXs are eligible for JTS Production (as per Rule 7(6) of IBPS.

 But even now, the PSA has attached a rider in their stance.

Now the PSA says, since now there are practically no more producers left, the remaining production posts may be given to the PEXs.

The PSA has even gone and forcefully incorporated this into the draft Prasar Bharati rules that will replace the IBPS Rules. The PSAs stance is that PEXs may be given the left overs.

 AUPOs stance is that the we want our legitimate due from 1990 onwards as per rules.

Our legal battle will eventually result in the  PEXs getting their promotions from a back date.

Junior  Producers  who have been  promoted ahead of their senior PEXs  will face reversions. We wish our Producer brothers well. We only want our legitimate due permissible as per rules.

We cannot agree with the PSA trying to keep the Producers happy by flouting statutory rules. We cannot be told to be satisfied by leftovers of the wedding feast. Our due must come to us from a back date.

 Why is  the PSA always willing to sacrifice the PEXs inspite of the rules? Why has there been a consistent attempt to wrongfully flout rules and favour Producers.

AUPO reiterates that we have nothing against our Producer brothers. But AUPO will not allow what is our rightful due to be illegally taken by  others beyond their legitimate share.

AUPO strongly condems the PSA stance of sacrificing the PEXs interest presumably to safeguard the unikty of the Producers within the PSA.

 AUPOs THIRD IMPORTANT ISSUE _PAY REVISION OF PEXS/PRODUCERS

 Aupos third important issue   is that after the last agitation of the PSA (wherein much was promised for the PEX cadre) we found that the salary of TREXs/PRODUCTION ASSISTANTS which was always two steps lower than the PEX was equated with the PEX  for 10 long years (1986-1996). The Trex/PAs salary was also hiked by one step (1978-1985).

All PEXs are aware of this anomaly and the legal battle against this anomaly was spearheaded by  individuals who are today AUPOs core members. A similar case was also filed by Sh. Pramod Mehta of the PSWA.

The court has clearly stated that the 2 steps difference between PEXs and Trexs should be maintained . The Court has agreed to our contention that a subordinate and superior cadre cannot draw the same salary and has referred the matter to an anomalies committee.

This is a major achievement and if the Trexs/PA,s continue to get enhanced salary a revised benefit would have to be given to PEXs also. Producers would also be benefiting. (A typographical error in the judgment is pending before the court now).

This is a major achievement which we should now pursue at the Governmental levels.

 HOUSING etc

 As far as issues like Housing/CGHS etc, the CEO and Ministry of I&B are not the competent authority to grant us these facilities as this is not within their power.

They can only take up this matter with the Ministry of Health & Urban development. This is already being done .

Meanwhile the engineering staff who signed an agreement with the CEO for continuing these facilities, found that their agreement had no standing or utility with the Ministry of Urban Development. This is an issue that would have to be collectively taken up by the Engineers and Programme staff together as a single point programme.

 The Ministry of I&B is meanwhile allocating sufficient funds for housing for Prasar Bharati employees.

 AUPOs central committee has decided that AUPO besides following our grievances legally will also  meet the new Honourable Minister for I &B and present  to himour ow