SMT RAJANI ASHOK PATIL vs ALL INDIA RADIO SERVICES on 26 October 2026

1. Smt. Rajani wife of Ashok Patil, aged about 55 years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o Plot No. 47, Maa Renuka Vihar Colony, Rameshwari Ring Road, Nagpur – 440027. Investigator, All India Radio, Civil Line, Nagpur. … Applicant (By Advocate Shri M M Sudame) Versus

1. The Director General, All India Radio, Akashwani Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, 2nd Floor, P.T.I. Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Pin No. 110001.

3. The Director Audience Research, All India Radio, Room No. 12 & 14, Fourth Floor, Akashwani Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001.

4. The Dy. Director General (WR I & II), All India Radio Broadcasting House, Back Bay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400020.

5. The Station Director, All India Radio, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.

6. Dy. Director Admn, (S-II Section), Prasar Bharati, India’s Public Service Broadcaster, Directorate General, All India Radio, New Delhi – 110001.

…. Respondents

(By Advocate Shri R. D. Damle)

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Order (oral)

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and ld. Counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant has raised challenge to the action of the respondents in not conducting DPC in the year 2001.

3. Facts in nutshell are that the applicant was appointed as Statistical Computer in All India Radio at Nagpur. 3.1 In the year 1996, the applicants colleague by the name of Smt. C S Karnik was promoted as Statistical Assistant/Investigator Grade II. This promotion was made without conducting the DPC. She further contends that Smt. P.M. Chaudhuri and Smt. S.N. Churi who were working as Punch and Verify Operator respectively were promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant/Investigator Gr II in the year 1996 ignoring the applicant. It is further alleged that these 3 persons were promoted as Statistical Assistant/Investigator Gr. II when there was no vacant post of Investigator at Mumbai. The respondents by by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

colorable exercise of power have promoted these 3 persons to the post of Statistical Assistant/Investigator Gr. II without convening the DPC which is evident from the seniority list from the year 1994 to 2000. In this seniority list, the names of these 3 persons were not appearing and still they were promoted as Statistical Assistant/Investigator Gr. II in West Zone. 3.2 It is further contended that Respondent No. 3 has published seniority list of Investigator Gr. I as on 1st January 2013 in the year 2015. At that time the applicant came to know that her legitimate claim for promotion in the year 1996 was taken away by Respondent No. 3 by not considering her name for the post of Investigator Gr. II which is a feeder cadre for Gr. I. As a consequence Shri L. Chuba Jamir and Smt. C S Karnik were promoted. Applicant should have been placed above Shri L Chuba Jamir. The applicant contends that a great injustice has been caused to her by not promoting her in the year 1996. It is further contended that when the draft seniority list of by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Investigator Gr. II on all India basis for promotion to the post of Investigator Gr. I was published wherein the applicant was placed at Srl. No. 10, whereas from Srl. No. 1-9 who are from different zones are shown senior to the applicant. The Western Zone in which the applicant is placed has not convened DPC from the year 1994-2008. 3.3 The applicant was not aware of all these developments which have taken place behind her back. Therefore she made representation on 13th June 2014 vide Annexure A/15. Her representation came to be rejected and thereafter the applicant has filed this original application seeking following reliefs:

(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the seniority list of Investigators/Statistical Assistants published on 01.01.2001 of West Zone and direct the Respondent No. 4 to modify the said seniority list placing the applicant’s name above Smt. C S Karnik and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to modify the All India Seniority List of Investigator Grade - I and place the Applicant above Smt. S. N Churi and circulate the modified Seniority List of Investigator Grade - II and Investigator - I respectively and further be pleased to direct to grant all the consequential service benefits.

(ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quashed and set aside the speaking order dated 14.03.2017 issued by the respondent by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

whereby the request of the applicant in the representation dated 13.06.2014 was not properly consdiered and appreciated.

(iii) Grant any other relief, order or direction this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The respondents contend that DPC in the year 1996 was not held as there were only 3 post of Statistical Investigator. As per rules prevalent at that time, DPC was required to be held only when there were four vacant posts. Therefore, there was no question of holding DPC. They further contend that there is inordinate delay in filing the application. She is challenging the denial of promotion in the year 1996 in the year 2017. They contend that on this ground alone, the original application needs to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and ld. Counsel for the respondents.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents ought to have conducted DPC in the year 1996 while promoting Smt. C S Karnik. They did not hold DPC. No seniority list was published and therefore the applicant was not aware of her seniority positions. If the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

respondents had published the seniority list and conducted the DPC, the applicant would have had the opportunity to challenge the same. The applicant came to know that the seniority list was not published and that the DPC was not held only in the year 2013 when draft seniority list was circulated. He submits that the respondents be directed to conduct DPC for the year 1996 and promote the applicant, if the applicant is found suitable w.e.f. 1996. For this purpose he has placed reliance on judgment of coordinate bench of this tribunal in OA No. 467/215 (Smt. Lata Satyanarayan Kamath vrs UOI).

7. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the DPC was not held as rules prevalent at that time did not permit to do so. He submits that the rules were amended in the year 2007 and thereafter only the respondents started conducting DPC for all promotion irrespective of vacancies. He submits that there is no explanation from by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

the applicant about the delay in preferring the original application.

8. We gave serious considerations to the submission made by counsels for the respective parties.

9. It is not in dispute that Smt C S Karnik was promoted in the year 1996. If the applicant had any grievance about her promotion in the year 1996 she could have laid challenge to her promotion within a reasonable time from 1996. The applicant for the reasons which have not been explained has not challenged the same. The applicant in the year 2014 for the first time made representation for her claim for promotion as Statistical Assistant/Investigator Gr. II. In that representation also it does not reflect that any explanation much less cogent was assigned for not making the representation since 1996. Thus there is 18 years delay in challenging her promotion on account of non conducing of DPC. It is settled principle of law that it is not permissible for Tribunal to open the stale cases. It is one such example of stale case.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

10. The reliance placed on the case of Smt. Lata Satyanarayan Kamath (supra) is wholly misplaced. This Tribunal had issued the direction to the respondents to conduct the review DPC in the year 2015 for the promotion which were to take effect on 15th August 2015 more so when the applicant Smt Lata was retiring in September, 2015. It is apparent from these facts that there was no delay in the original application filed by Smt. Lata Satyanarayan Kamath (supra). Therefore this judgment has no application to the facts of the case at hand.

11. From the aforestated discussion it is clear that the applicant wants the DPC to be held for her promotion which ought to have been granted to her in the year 1996. Because of the passage of time, it won’t be possible for the respondents to collect the record and take an appropriate decision. Thus, the delay itself is a ground for non suiting the applicant. The application is, therefore, devoid of substance on aspect of delay and also on merits.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

12. In view of the above we are inclined to dismiss the application. Hence the application is dismissed with no order as to cost. Pending MA’s, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava)

(Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A)

Member (J)

(sadish) Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR