DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. versus SMT. MAGI H DESAI

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 24-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI
CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
SMT. MAGI H DESAI
(Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 2023)
MARCH 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – rr. 13, 14 –
High Court directed that the services of the respondent rendered as
contractual/casual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service
for calculating the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits
– Held: High Court materially erred in observing that the contractual
service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity –
Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service
rendered on a substantive appointment – Neither the rule nor the
regularisation scheme provide that services rendered as casual/
contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same
shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits –
Impugned judgment passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside – Judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the OA filed by the
respondent is restored – Service Law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1787
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2022 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 14592 of 2021.
Rajeev Sharma, Sr. Adv., Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Sohan Patil,
Saket Chandra, Pranav Giri, Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Hardik Virendrakumar Vora, Ms. Neelam Singh, Sameer Singh,
Karan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Singh, Ashish Sheoran, Advs. for the
Respondent.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 660
660
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 14592/2021, by which
the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
preferred by the respondent herein and has directed that the services of
the respondent herein – original writ petitioner rendered as contractual
shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purpose of
calculating the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits, the
Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and
another have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under:
That the respondent herein – original applicant was engaged as a
General Assistant on contract/casual basis in the year 1985. The services
of the respondent as General Assistant on contract/casual basis were
thereafter extended from time to time, however, with break of few days.
The original applicant thereafter filed Original Application No. 32/1987
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,
Ahmedabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The said OA was partly allowed
vide order dated 30.08.1990 with a direction to the department – appellants
herein to pay her the same salary and allowances that were being paid
to other regular General Assistants/Clerks from October, 1990 with
arrears.
2.1 That thereafter, pursuant to the decision of the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to regularise casual
employees by way of framing of scheme, the services of the original
applicant came to be regularised as Lower Division Clerk with effect
from 31.03.1995 pursuant to the Scheme of Regularisation of Casual
Staff Artists of Doordarshan, 1992/94. The original application was given
the regular scale of Lower Division Clerk from the date of regularisation
on the said post.
2.2 That thereafter the original applicant approached the Tribunal
seeking consideration of her past service. The said OA came to be
dismissed, which was the subject matter of writ petition before the High
Court. The High Court was pleased to permit the original applicant to
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI
CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SMT. MAGI H DESAI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
submit representation to the department. That thereafter the respondent
– original applicant submitted representation dated 11.4.2014. Vide order
dated 18.09.2014, the department rejected the representation of the
respondent for giving her the benefit of casual/contractual services
rendered by her from 1985 till 31.03.1995 for calculating the pensionary/
service benefits.
2.3 That thereafter, the original applicant filed another OA No.
44
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.