Holding

The benefits under the 1999 Memorandum are limited to employees "currently in service of Prasar Bharati", and a retired employee is not entitled to the upgradation of pay scales.

Summary

The respondent, a former Transmission Executive of All India Radio, retired voluntarily on 31 July 1997, before the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 came into force on 23 November 1997. A Government Memorandum dated 25 February 1999 granted upgraded pay scales to employees "currently in service of Prasar Bharati". The respondent claimed entitlement to these benefits and the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held he was eligible, a decision upheld by the Gauhati High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the wording of Clause 2 of the Memorandum and held that the benefits were intended only for those who were in service of Prasar Bharati at the time of the Memorandum; a retired employee was therefore ineligible. Consequently, the Court set aside the CAT and High Court orders and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a employee who took voluntary retirement before the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 came into effect is entitled to the pay‑scale upgradation benefits under the Government Memorandum dated 25‑02‑1999.

Legislation cited

Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990s. 11

Subjects

service lawpay scale upgradationvoluntary retirementPrasar Bharati Actgovernment memorandumeligibilityCentral Administrative TribunalSupreme Court

Judgment

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. F
Allowing the appeal, the Court

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 (CA1) 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)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2823 of2005.
B
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 YAT, 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
from the Memorandum dated 25.2.1999 issued by the Government of India,
H
U.0.1. v. ANUP KR. ROY [PASA YAT, 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 orders passed by various Benches of
CAT taking similar view were placed for consideration. It was clearly held that
persons similarly situated as respondents were not entitled to the benefits
flowing from the Memorandum dated 25.2.1999. By its impugned judgment
dated 20.12.2002 the Guwahati Bench held that the applicant who was in B
service till 1997 was entitled to the benefits mentioned in Clause (iv) of para
2 of the Memorandum dated 25.2.1999.

The Guwahati Bench of CAT in its judgment which was assailed before
the High Court noted that the earlier judgment of Principal Bench, CAT was
clearly binding on it. After having noted this position in law, which according
c
to us is a correct, the Tribunal came to an abrupt conclusion that the applicant
who was in service till 1997 was entitled to the benefits. A writ petition was
filed in the Guwahati High Court which by the impugned order held that the
Tribunal's judgment did not suffer from any infinnity.
D
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare reading of the
Memorandum makes it clear that it is only available to existing incumbents
i.e. to those who were presently in service. Since the respondent took voluntary
retirement even before the Prasar Bharati Corporation came into existence on
23.11.1997, the benefits claimed cannot be given.
E
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
the fixation of the benefits is done on the basis of negotiation, the intention
is clear that those who had at any point of time been working in the All India
Radio or Prasar Bharati were entitled to the benefits.

Clause 2(i) of the Memorandum dated 25.2.1999 needs to be noted. It F
clearly makes the position clear that the upgradation of pay scales to certain
categories of employees relateii to those who were working in Prasar Bharati.
Admittedly, the respondent was neither working in the All India Radio or
Doordarshan on 25.2.1999. "Upgradation" referred to in clauses 2 and 4 read

-
as follows: G
"2. The grant of revised pay scales as mentioned in para 1 above will
be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The upgraded scales will be allowed not as Government employees
·' per se but as Government employees currently in service of Prasar
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
,.
A Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India). As and when the
employees presently working in All India Radio and Doordarshan are
asked to exercise their option, those employees who do not opt for
Prasar Bharati will revert as Government servants and will no longer
be entitled to above scales. They will also have to refund all benefits
availed of by them as a result of the grant of higher scales of pay.
B They will be liable to recovery of all such benefits. An undertaking
in the proforma given at Annexure-ll to this effect has to be submitted
by each and every employee concerned before availing the benefit of
upgraded scales of pay. This is in accordance with their agreement
with the Government to avail these upgraded scale son this condition
c only.

(ii) Upgraded pay scales would be effective from I. I .1998 but payment
of salary to employees as per upgraded scales of pay will be made
with effect from !st March, 1999.

(iii) xx xx xx xx
D
(iv) In addition, the pay of those employees of All India Radio and
Doordarshan who had been working as Transmission Executives as
on 1.1.1978 or afterwards would be notionally fixed in the pay scale
ofRs.550-900 with effect from 1.1.1978 and in the pay scales ofRs.200-
3200 with effect from 1.1.1988 before fixing their pay in the upgraded
E
pay scale as on 1.1.1998. But as per their agreement with the
Government, this will not entitle them to any payment of arrears for
the period prior to 1.1.1996 and will be limited to fixation of their
current pay as on 1.1.1996.

F The pay fixation in the upgraded scales of pay shall be done as
provided in CCS (RP) Rules, 1997.

4. The benefit of the upgraded pay scales will be available to existing
incumbents only and those new direct recruits who join after issuance
of these orders will not be entitled to these scales, but will be governed
G by pay scales recommended by the Vth Pay Commission. However, all
promotions of existing incumbents shall be made in upgraded scales
only."

(Underlined for emphasis)

H A bare reading of the provisions makes the position clear that the
U.0.1. v. ANUP KR. ROY [PASAY AT,J.] 697
benefits were intended to be given to those who were working in Prasar A
Bharati or were currently in service of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation
of India). The underlined words leave no manner of doubt. Therefore, the
respondent was not entitled for upgradation of scales of pay. That being so,
the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court cannot be maintained.
We observe with some amount of dismay that the Guwahati Bench of CAT
after having referred to various orders passed by different benches had B
proceeded 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. The impugned order of the Guwahati High
Court affirming the order of the Guwahati Bench of CAT is set aside. C
The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

•.