1787 OF 2023 Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-003481-003481-2022-2/
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.
1
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
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. By a detailed judgment and order dated 08.09.2021, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA by observing that the services rendered by the respondent as contractual/casual cannot be treated and/or considered as temporary service and therefore the services rendered as such shall not be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits/service benefits. By observing so and relying upon Rule 13 of the Rules applicable, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has directed that the services of the respondent – the writ petitioner rendered as contractual/casual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purposes of calculating qualifying service in accordance with the rules and accordingly she shall be paid the pension on her retirement. It is submitted that therefore proviso to Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ’1972 Rules’) shall not be applicable and therefore the services rendered as such as casual/contractual employee cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits/service benefits.
However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to point out any statutory provision under which the respondent is claiming 50% services rendered as a casual/contractual for the purposes of pensionary benefits/service benefits.
Commencement of qualifying service – Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity : Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post : Provided further that – (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group D’……. (3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply.”
Even the services rendered as temporary service can be considered as qualifying service provided that the officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
The question is not whether the services rendered by a contractual employee would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity.
Case Title: DIRECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF DG DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARATI CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. MAGI H DESAI (2023 INSC 290)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001787-001787 / 2023
