P DHANPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT aggrieved by A1 order dated 15.11.99 by which his plea to protect the post of Assistant Newsreel Officer in Group-B as a separate cadre was rejected and A-4 order dated 12.8.99 by which the post of Assistant Newsreel Officer Group-B was downgraded to a Group-C cadre of Assistant Cameraman without considering the representation made by the applicant and A-5 order dated 7.1.99 by which the Government approved the merger of the posts of Newsreel Officer with the post of Chief Cameraman and redesignated the same as Chief Cameraman, filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) According to the averments of the applicant in the O.A. the Fifth Pay Commission without proper appreciation of different cadres in the department recommended declaration of the cadre of Assistant Newsreel Officer as a dying cadre and also the merger of assistant Newsreel Officer in the Group-B cadre with a Group-C cadre of Assistant Cameraman. The second respondent by A2 letter dated 19.6.97 invited representations from employees for removing the anomalies in the draft recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. Immediately after A2 applicant submitted A3 representation dated 24.6.97 before the second respondent pointing out the irregularities in the proposed merger and requested for upgradation of his cadre or at least to maintain status quo. According to the applicant the merger of Assistant Newsreel Officer with Assistant Cameraman and merger of Newsreel Officer with Chief Cameraman was made totally ignoring cadre structure, duties, responsibilities and status enjoyed by respective cadres. Duties and responsibilities of Assistant Cameraman could not be equated with the independent responsibilities of an Assistant Newsreel Officer. The respondents did not consider A3 representation properly. They had effected the merger without removing the anomalies. Aggrieved by A4 and A5 applicant submitted A6 review petition dated 18.10.99 before the respondents. Without applying mind to A6 petition respondents gave effect to their earlier orders and rejected applicant's petition as not feasible stating merger as a policy of the State through Al order. Applicant was appointed as Assistant Newsreel Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 w.e.f. 17.1.94. The qualification required was higher than that of Assistant Cameraman. They were appointed in the Group-B cadre having independent charge. Their duties and responsibilities were 100% same as that of a Newsreel Officer in the Group-B Gazetted cadre. Both the cadres were entrusted with the responsibilities of shooting Tele films in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Their duties were to set up a Camera Tripod etc. They were to assist the Cameraman while shooting Tele films for the department. The post of Asst. Cameraman was several times inferior to that of an Asst. Newsreel Officer, it was claimed. He submitted that the post of Assistant Cameraman required lesser qualification than stipulated for the post of Assistant Newsreel Officers. The Department recruits them directly in the Group-C cadre in the pay scale, of Rs. 1400-2300. They had no independent charge or no territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that there were only two Assistant Newsreel Officers remaining in the cadre. There were a total of 13 posts in the cadre of Newsreel Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500-the promotional post of the applicant prior to merger. The merger of his the promotional post with the post of Chief Cameraman along with downgrading of applicant to a Group-C post proved fatal to promotion opportunities which existed at the time of entry into service. The merger was effected without providing any quota for Assistant Newsreel Officers in the Group-B cadre to their immediate promotional cadre in the gazetted Group-B as Newsreel Officers or other equivalent cadre. According to the applicant the merger resulted in denial of promotion avenues to the applicant to the post of Newsreel Officer which was a promotional post prior to merger and the applicant was downgraded to Group-C cadre. Hence he filed this O.A. seeking the above reliefs.

(3.) APPLICANT filed rejoinder. According to him equation of an Assistant Newsreel Officer with that of Assistant Cameraman was not based on any valid material and was liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. It was submitted in the additional reply statement the matter was examined by the Pay Commission who recommended merger having taken into account the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two posts.