Casual artist remains ineligible for regularisation when scheme-based age relaxation does not cure overage.

Ravi Kumar Yadav was engaged as a Casual Lighting Assistant at Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow on 18 March 1989. After his death on 21 September 2023, his wife and children were substituted as applicants.

The respondents introduced a regularization scheme for Casual Artists through the Office Memorandum dated 9 June 1992, subsequently modified by OMs dated 17 March 1994 and 5 July 1994.

Ravi Kumar Yadav had worked for 125 days in 1989 and was therefore eligible for consideration under the 120-day requirement.

He had earlier filed OA No. 150/1993, which was disposed of on 8 February 2000 with a direction to consider his regularization. He subsequently filed OA No. 465/2002, which was partly allowed on 16 September 2005, directing reconsideration of his case in light of the treatment given to Sishir Kumar Singh. The respondents rejected his claim on 8 March 2006.

In 2014, the applicant again sought regularization. Pursuant to directions in OA No. 5/2015, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 27 May 2015, communicated on 28 May 2015, rejecting his claim.

1. Whether the applicant was eligible for regularization under the Doordarshan Casual Artists’ regularization scheme, having completed more than 120 days of engagement in a calendar year.

2. Whether the applicant was discriminated against because similarly situated over-age casual artists, including Sishir Kumar Singh and Anjali Dixit, had been regularized.

3. Whether the respondents correctly applied the scheme’s provisions concerning age, age relaxation, and consideration of over-age cases to the applicant.

4. Whether the unchallenged rejection order dated 8 March 2006 barred or otherwise undermined the applicant’s claim in the present proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the regularization scheme introduced by OM dated 9 June 1992, under which Casual Artists employed on casual basis on 31 December 1991 and engaged for an aggregate of at least 120 days in a calendar year were eligible for consideration; paragraph 6 permitted age relaxation corresponding to the service rendered, treating 120 days in a year as one year’s service.

The revised OM dated 17 March 1994 required over-age cases to be referred to the Directorate for a decision on merits and prescribed computation of engagement days on the basis of wages divided by the applicable minimum wage, subject to a maximum of 25 days per month.

The clarification dated 5 July 1994 fixed 9 June 1992 as the crucial date for age calculation, restricted age-relaxation service to engagement up to that date, and required consideration of casual artists who had completed 120 days in any calendar year up to 31 December 1991.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle of consistent application of an administrative policy, particularly the respondents’ practice of deeming an over-age casual artist to have been recruited at the maximum permissible age under the applicable Recruitment Rules as on 31 December of the year of initial engagement.

The original scheme had been framed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions and the decision in Anil Kumar Mathur v. Union of India, OA No. 563/1986.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant satisfied the minimum eligibility requirement because he had completed 125 days of engagement in 1989.

However, eligibility for consideration did not by itself establish entitlement to regularization.

Applying the respondents’ policy of deeming an over-age artist’s age to be the maximum age prescribed by the applicable Recruitment Rules on 31 December of the year of initial engagement, the applicant was treated as 25 years old on 31 December 1989. Consequently, his deemed age on the crucial date of 9 June 1992 was approximately 27 years and five months.

Although he received one year’s age relaxation for completing 125 days in 1989, he remained over-age by approximately one year and five months.

The Tribunal found no discriminatory treatment in comparison with Sishir Kumar Singh and Anjali Dixit. Both had been initially engaged in 1991 and, under the same deeming methodology, were only marginally over-age on 9 June 1992; their over-age position was covered by the one-year relaxation arising from completion of at least 120 days in 1991.

Angad Lal was distinguishable because the Recruitment Rules applicable when he was engaged in 1986 permitted direct recruitment between 21 and 30 years, so he was not over-age at initial engagement.

Conversely, the applicant was governed by the 1988 Recruitment Rules, which prescribed an age range of 18 to 25 years for Lighting Assistants. The Tribunal also noted that the three-year OBC age relaxation was introduced only in 1995 and was therefore unavailable when he was initially engaged in 1989.

Finally, the applicant had not challenged the earlier rejection dated 8 March 2006, which had already found him not similarly situated to the persons relied upon by him.

The applicants were therefore not entitled to regularization or reconsideration under paragraph 4 of the scheme.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; the connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.