The Review DPC Case, 1982 to 1989 (AUPO Vs. Union of India)
CAT Order
STAYED by Delhi High Court on 24.3.2003
Status of the Case: In the Review DPC case of PEX/Producer to ASD from 1982-1989 pending in the Delhi High Court,
the PSA and DPPA have been impleaded along with Shri. Ashraf Lone.
The next hearing in Delhi High Court will be on 16 December 2003.
In
the Civil Writ Petition 2110/2003 of AUPO Vs. UOI filed against CAT Judgment
dated 22.1.2003, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices D K Jain and Madan
Lokur stayed the Judgment and Order dated
22.1.2003 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench and directed that the results of the DPC for promotion to the post of
Assistant Station Director from among the Staff Artistes from 1982 to 1989 conducted on 2nd /3rd August
2001 shall not be declared till further orders by the Court.
AUPO had impleaded PSA and DPPA (Doordarshan Programme Producers
Association) in this case.
The CAT Principal Bench had dismissed AUPO's O.A. No: 821/2001
by an order dated 22.1.2003, observing that it would be premature to take any view on the case since the Department has
not actually gone against the statutory rules - yet. It was stated that we would have a case if, after the results of
the Review DPC were to be released, it is seen that the Department has gone against the statutory rules. CAT had consequently vacated the stay on the Review DPC results.
Many of our seniors who were promoted as ASD between March 1982 and
December 1989 could have been reverted as a consequence of the CAT Order.
(All promotions to the post of ASD from the rank of PEX/Producer
made in the period 1982 to 1989 are being reviewed. The erstwhile contractual staff artistes (Producers etc) were made Govt.
Servants with effect from 6 March 1982. On 23 Oct 1984, the Govt. vide a Gazette Notification (1984 Group 'B' Recruitment Rules) made a provision for encadrement of certain categories of erstwhile
Staff Artistes in the regular grade of PEXs, subject to their being screened and found fit.
The rules also specified that there shall be two separate seniority
lists for the regular PEXs and the erstwhile contractual Staff Artistes, as their mode of entry, method of recruitment, qualification
etc were different. Promotion to the next higher grade of ASD was based on a ratio depending on the the number of persons
in each category. The rules also specified that for promotion as ASD, a minimum of five years in the grade of PEX
was required.
The Department, however, over the years had neither followed the
eligibility criterion of five years in the case of contractual Staff Artistes nor the proper ratio between PEXs and Producers
as required by the Rules. In fact, the Department promoted PEXs and Producers in the ratio 1:1. This resulted in 1975
recruited PEXs remaining unpromoted while the contractual Staff Artistes who subsequently entered the system by virtue of
their encadrement vide the 1984 rules were promoted ahead of their seniors.
In the present Review DPC, the Department was asked by the J&K
High Court in the Ashraf Lone Case to identify the post of ASDs from 1982 onwards and to promote people from both PEXs and
Producers based on service rules and eligibility. The Department, however, attempted to ignore eligibility and ratio
and tried to extend the benefit to Producers with effect from 1982.
AUPO
approached the Hon'ble CAT Delhi that the ratio was not being followed nor were the service rules and eligibility
conditions being taken into account. The Hon'ble CAT issued directions relating to the following of the ratio rules, which
the Department has accepted. Had AUPO not intervened,
50% of those PEXs who were promoted to the grade of ASD between 1982 to 1984 and are now in the grade of DDG etc would
have been reverted (i.e., approximately 27 persons). This would have resulted in reversions down the line at all levels.
The legal position is that the status of the erstwhile contractual
staff artistes in the regular grade could become effective only from 23 Oct 1984 when the Gazette Notification was published
and after they had fulfilled the criteria prescribed in the said rules. Secondly, no contractual service is recognized for
the purpose of eligibility. This case would also have far reaching consequences for the cadre of PEXs as the flouting of service
rules (ratio, eligibility etc) has resulted in very senior PEXs remaining unpromoted whereas junior contractual Producers
etc. were promoted unjustly promoted ahead of their seniors. The fall-out of this continued into the IB(P)S era resulting
in 1979 PEXs like Narasimhacharyulu, Sahu etc. and 1982 UPSC PEXs like Devika Moktan, Upendra Raina etc. being reverted while
staff artistes who subsequently entered the system in 1983 remained unaffected as Dy. Director, Station Director etc).
With the stay on the CAT Order, the Review DPC results of 1982-89
will now be withheld until the Case iS finally decided. With the High Court taking up the case with great seriousness,
it seems inevitable that justice will prevail and that the Judgment will be in our favour.
WATCH THIS SPACE!
The Pay Anomaly Case (G R Syed Vs. Union of India)
This case was filed before AUPO came into being by seven UPSC-recruited Programme Officers (six of whom are among the founding members
of AUPO. (Dr. G R Syed, ASD, ESD;
Jose Jude Mathew, PEX, DDK, Delhi; Amlanjyothi Majumdar, ASD, ESD; Gaurav Gangopadhyay, PEX, AIR Delhi; Dr. Arvind Tripathi,
PEX, AIR Gorakhpur; Kum. Sunita, PEX, AIR Delhi). The seventh applicant is S C Bhatia, ASD, DT&PES who is now the
Vice-President of the PSWA (Programme Staff Welfare Assn.).
This case was filed because, consequent to an Order issued in Feb 1999, those promoted from the categories of Prod. Assts
and TREXs started getting a higher salary than Programme Executives senior to them. The essence of this case is that PEXs,
since the 3rd Pay Commission, have always had a two-step difference in their salary as compared to TREXs, which was disturbed
by the Feb 1999 Order. This Order even equated the salary of the TREXs and the PEXs between the period 1986 to 1996. (The
TREXs salary became 2000-3200 and the PEXs salary continued to be 2000-3500, which is effectively the same salary with
same increment for a period of 17 years). This case was heard along with a similar case filed by Pramod Mehta (PEX, AIR
Delhi).
Present Status of the Case: The matter was argued by AUPO's lawyer,
Geetanjali Goel. The Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT Delhi has agreed to our contention in their judgement dt. Sept 27, 2002
that the salaries of PEXs was always two steps higher than the TREXs. They also concur that the pay scales of TREXs and PEXs
were effectively equated during the period 1986 to 1996. The Court has directed that the matter for revision of payscales
of PEXs be considered by an Anomalies Committee consisting of three officers not below the rank
Jt. Secretaries, including one from the Ministry of Finance. The Court has also directed that one of the Applicants would
be permitted to part of the deliberations of the Anomalies Committee. The Court has given the Anomalies Committee three months
to consider the matter.
The Beneficiaries of this case will be all PEXs & Producers who served in this category between
1978 to 1996.
The Bangalore CAT has meanwhile quashed the Feb 1999 Order (wherein the pay revision of TREXs/PEXs took
place) stating that it was a breach of the fundamental right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that, since all the employees were Govt. Servants on deputation to Prasar Bharati, a pay hike could
not be given to one or two categories of employees at the expense of the others. We have held consultations with the PSA in
this matter, and have also given them a copy of our judgement dt. 27 Sept 2002 for use in their appeal in the Bangalore High
Court. AUPO will offer any assistance to
the PSA and the Engineering Associations who are also beneficiaries of the Feb 1999 Order that they may require
The IB(P)S Case (AUPO Vs. Union of India)
The essence of this case is that, though as per
the IB(P)S Rules, PEXs are eligible for both JTS (Production)
and JTS (Management) of AIR & Doordarshan, they have so far
not been considered for JTS (Production).
(Please see Rule 7(6)(a)(i) of the IB(P)S Rules for any further clarification).
The net result is that though there are around 1000 Programme Executives who have completed the minimum three years
eligibility to be promoted to JTS, and the Department has asked for their options as per the rules, the Department has not
considered the PEXs for JTS (Production).
Today, there are approximately 100 vacancies for JTS (Production),
but the Dept. is unaware of how to fill up these vacancies, since they have earlier taken the stance that PEXs are not eligible
for JTS (Production).
The Department had earlier, by not considering Pexs for JTS (Production), promoted erstwhile contractual staff artists
(producers etc) ahead of Programme Executives much senior to them. For instance, UPSC-recruited Programme Officers of 1982
batch (Devika Moktan, Subramaniam, Upendra Raina etc), and promotee PEXs of 1979 (Narasimhacharyalu, Sahu etc) were reverted
to adhoc ASD in 2000. Meanwhile, contractual Producers of 1983 etc remained unaffected in the rank of Dy. Director
and Station Director.
This case of AUPO
will benefit all Programme Executives. It is our legitimate right as per IB(P)S rules and as per our nature of duties to produce
programmes, and we cannot afford to take the denial of promotion to JTS
(Production) lightly.
We cannot also afford any compromise in this matter. AUPO does not agree with the PSA stance that PEXs are not
eligible for JTS (Production). Any attempt to temporarily transfer
these posts to JTS (Management) as is being attempted by the PSA
could block all levels of JTS (Production) posts to us in
the future and also legitimise a wrongful act.
The verdict of the IB(P)S case will have far reaching consequences for the careers
of all Programme Executives. AUPO's case
is clubbed with Sachidanand Singh Vs. UOI , a case filed by one of AUPO's members, an ASD in DDK Bhopal earlier.
This case was transferred by AUPO to CAT
Delhi in order to avoid multiple judgments.
Legal opinion on the matter is that AUPO has
a strong and fool-proof case. The Department, through the Govt. Counsel, is delaying the matter by requesting the Court
for extended time on many occasions.
