Delhi High Court
Director General Doordarshan vs Dharam Singh & Anr. on 12 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~R-22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 12.7.2010
+ W.P.(C) 132/2004
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.
versus
DHARAM SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 11.4.2000, the Central
Administrative Tribunal has allowed OA No.91/1999 filed by
Dharam Singh, respondent No.1, who claimed that being born
on 3.3.1964 he had to be treated as below the maximum age
limit of 25 years prescribed for regularization; for the reason the
applicable policy envisaged 3 years‟ age relaxation.
2. A perusal of the order dated 11.4.2000 shows that
the Tribunal has considered 9.6.1992 as the cut off date for
purposes of computing the requirement of number of days
worked as envisaged under the policy for purposes of acquiring
the eligibility for regularization.
3. The Tribunal has referred to its order dated
20.8.1993 allowing OA No.380/1993 „Lalit Vikram vs. Director
General, Doordarshan‟, wherein, in para 20 of its order, the
Tribunal held that having deleted para 6 of the Scheme dated
9.6.1992, as per para III of the Memorandum dated 10.6.1992,
to determine the number of years by which the upper age limit
has to be relaxed needed to be re-worked.
4. The petitioner thereupon filed a Review drawing
attention that there existed another office memorandum dated
5.7.1994 stating that the same has not been considered by the
Tribunal.
5. Said Review Application stands dismissed vide order
dated 5.3.2003.
6. While dismissing the Review Application, the Tribunal
has held, in para 7, as under:-
"7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
of the parties and perused the material on record. In
the light of the decision in Anil Kumar Mathur‟s case
(supra) a scheme was formulated by the respondents
for regularization of casual artists. What has been
done through the scheme of 1994 is
modification/clarification of computation of working
days. The rest of the scheme has not been changed.
The Scheme of 1994 though upheld by the Apex Court,
inter alia, in para 1 contends that in para 2 of the
Scheme of 9.6.1992 number of days for the purpose of
regularization is to be computed on the basis of the
actual working days. Moreover, the aforesaid Scheme
of 1994 cannot be treated as new Scheme but
modification of earlier Scheme and such is to be read
as part and parcel of the Scheme except modification
of computation of number of working days. This is in
consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court
in Grewal‟s case (supra) wherein it is held that
explanatory or clarificatory statute or statutory rules
or order is to be read and part and parcel of the main
order and would operate retrospectively. There is
nothing mentioned about the cut off date in the new
scheme of 17.3.1994 which is only a clarification
whereas in the scheme promulgated on 9.6.92 the cut
off date for calculating number of days is 13.12.91 and
as per the affidavit by Director referred to above, the
crucial date for closing calculation was 31.12.91. In
my considered view the aforesaid date is the date to
decide relaxation of upper age limit on the basis of
number of working days in a year and accordingly
relaxing it by treating 120 days in a year as one year
relaxation in age, as it is not disputed that even
according to 1994 Scheme applicant is entitled for
three years age relaxation having worked for more
than 120 days in three years, the cut off date to
ascertain the age limit is 31.12.91 as new Scheme has
not changed or altered in any manner this cut off date.
Applicant who was 27 years, 9 months and 21 days on
the crucial date on 31.12.91, on relaxation of three
years was 24 years, 9 months and 21 days, which is
below maximum age limit of 25 years. As such he was
eligible to be considered for regularization."
7. Having perused the application seeking review, it is
apparent that with reference to the office memorandum dated
5.7.1994, which clarified the office memorandum dated
17.3.1994, referred to by the Tribunal in para 7 of the decision,
vide sub para (c), it stands stipulated as under:-
"(c) The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of
age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and
there is no change in it."
8. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not referred to para
(c) of the memorandum dated 5.7.1994, though it very much
stands at the forefront of the application seeking review.
9. It appears to be a case where the requirement of
working out 120 days was creating some problem as per the
earlier circulars for the reason, as indicated in the Review
Application, it was only after giving benefit of the differential
manner of calculating the number of days worked, did the
petitioner become eligible on account of having worked for more
than 120 days in 3 calendar years, but unfortunately for him,
applying the same Scheme, he became overage.
10. It has been highlighted in the Review Application that
if the memorandum of 17.3.1994 and 5.7.1994 have to be
ignored, the effect would be that the respondent would not have
worked for 120 days in 3 calendar years. In other words, it was
urged that sub-para © of the memorandum dated 5.7.1994
could not be ignored.
11. Unfortunately for us, none appears for the
respondents at the hearing today.
12. But, we find that the issues raised in the Review
Application and in particular para (c) of the memorandum dated
5.7.1994 has just not been discussed by the Tribunal.
13. Surely, the issue needed a more focused and a clear
discussion and for said reason we are constrained to dispose of
the petition by setting aside the order dated 5.3.2003 dismissing
the application seeking review of the order dated 11.4.2000.
We restore the Review Application No.185/2000 with a direction
to re-decide the Review Application filed by the petitioner.
14. Since the petitioner has implemented the directions
issued by the Tribunal but with a note that the same is without
prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition, we direct that till
the Review Application is decided by the Tribunal, status quo
qua the services of the respondent shall be maintained.
15. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
JULY 12, 2010
dk
