UNION OF INDIA versus ANUP KR. ROY

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 19-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
V. 
ANUPKR.ROY 
JULY 19, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay Scale-Upgradation of-By a Memorandum-Of the employees 
affected by Prasar Bharati Act-Voluntary retirement by employee before C 
enforcement of the Act-Entitlement to the benefit under the Memorandum to 
the retired employee-Held: Since the benefits under the Memorandum were 
intended to be given to those employees who were currently in service of 
Prasar Bharti, retired employee not entitled to upgradation of the pay scale-
Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990. 
D 
Respondent-employee took voluntary retirement before Prasar Bharati 
(Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 came into effect. There were 
demands for higher pay scales considering which, a Memorandum was issued. 
Respondent filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati 
Bench claiming that he was entitled to the benefits flowing from the E 
Memorandum. The Tribunal after having held that the view of different co-
ordinate Benches that the employees situated as the respondent herein were 
not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Memorandum, without giving any 
reasons, held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit under the 
Memorandum. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by High Court in Writ 
Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. In view of Clause 2 of the Memorandum, the benefits were 
intended to be given to those who were working in Prasar Bharati or were 
currently in service of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India). G 
Therefore, the respondent was not entitled for upgradation of scales of pay. 
(697-A) 
2. The Guwahati Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CA 1) after 
having referred to various orders passed by different Benches had proceeded 
693 
H 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A and held that the view of co-ordinate Bench of CAT was binding on it; and that 
the Memorandum applied to existing employees. It did not give any reason 
why it thought that the respondent was entitled to the benefits notwithstanding 
the said view. (697-B-C) 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2823 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2004 of the High Court of 
Gauhati at Gauhati, in Writ Petition (C) No. 2882/2004. 
Rajeev Sharma and Vijay M. Chauhan for the Appellant. 
C 
D.S. Bhattacharya and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Union of India calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing 
D the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the Writ Petition challenge was made 
to the legality of the order passed by the Guwahati Bench of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (in short the 'CAT'). 
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 
E 
The respondent was working as Transmission Executive in the 
Broadcasting Ministry of the Government of India. In November 1997, All 
India Radio was a part of the Ministry of Broadcasting. The Prasar Bharati 
(Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 (in short the 'Act') was enacted 
providing for creation of a Corporation with effect from the appointed date 
F which is 23.11.1997. The respondent took voluntary retirement on 31.7.1997. 
Section l l of the Act provided that option is to be called for from the 
employees working in the Doordarshan and All India Radio as and when they 
opted for the transfer from the Central Government to Prasar Bharati. No final 
decision in these matters had been taken. With effect from 23.11.1997 some 
employees were deemed to be sent on deputation to Prasar Bharati. There 
G were demands for higher scales of pay by some employees considering which 
Memorandum dated 25.2.1999 was issued. The respondent filed an application 
before the CAT claiming that he was entitled to the benefits flowing from the 
aforesaid Memorandum dated 25.2.1999. The respondent in the original 
application i.e. present appellant took a positive stand that benefits flowing 
H 
from the Memorandum dated 25.2.1999 issued by the Government of India, 
U.0.1. v. ANUP KR. ROY [PASA Y AT, J.] 
695 
.... 
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was available to only those who A 
were working on the date of the Circular. During the hearing of the Original 
Application before the CAT several

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.