Jammu & Kashmir High CourtVijay Kumar And Others vs Director General on 1 July, 2022Sr.No. 29\n\n\n        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n                        AT JAMMU\n\n\n                                                      SWP No. 2001/2016\n                                                      IA No. 2/2016\n                                                      IA No. 1/2017\n                                                      CM No. 7182/2021\n                                                      CM No. 3209/2021\n                                                      IA No. 2/2017\n                                                      IA No. 1/2016\n\nVijay Kumar and others                                                ..... Petitioners\n\n\n                        Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Advocate\n\n\n                  Vs\n\n\nDirector General, Doordarshan and others                            ..... Respondents\n\n\n                        Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC\n\n\nCoram:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE\n\n                                      ORDER01.07.2022\n\n\n           This Writ was filed on 9th, September, 2016.In this writ petition twenty petitioners have come to put forth\n\nthough jointly their individual grievance emanating from their working status\n\nbearing different nomenclature like casual production assistants, make up\n\nassistants, lightening assistants, floor assistants, carpenters, library assistants,\n\nC.G operators, graphic assistants, set assistants on assignment basis with the\n\nDoordarshan Kendra Jammu. Lately the petitioners came to be designated as\n\nSet Assistants and bear their such status as on date. To put it simply, the\n\npetitioners are the work force engaged for the purpose of facilitating the\n\nprogramme production of the Doordarshan Kendra, Jammu.2                SWP No. 2001/2016The concern which caught the petitioners in the course of their\n\nworking was that minimum seven days work engagement/functional\n\nassignment per calendar month available to them was sought to be lessened to\n\nthree days. The engagement of the petitioners can be more than any number of\n\ndays in a calendar month subject to work demand but the minimum number of\n\ndays for which they are supposed to have their assured engagement is seven\n\ndays per calendar month which keeps them earning their respective livelihood\n\nfrom their work at the uniform rate prescribed. Be that as it may be, the fact\n\nremains that the petitioners have been long serving their assignments on seven\n\ndays minimum assured work days. The number of years which the petitioners\n\nhave invested in this arrangement of working is good part of their working life\n\nand that has set in a well entrenched legitimate expectation. Any unfair/\n\nunilateral action on the part of the respondents in effecting the reduction of the\n\nminimum number of working days would mean loss of their earning for their\n\nlivelihood. Thus, the writ cause of the petitioners is legitimate.In the course of hearing the submissions in the case, the counsel for\n\nthe parties were found in consensus to the fact that the petitioners are serving\n\non the very same working arrangement of seven days minimum assignment\n\neven as on date without any disruption. The learned counsel for the\n\nrespondents submits that this fixation of minimum days of assignment of the\n\nset assistants by the respondents is a work pattern followed uniformly\n\nthroughout and there cannot be a discrimination. The learned counsel of the\n\nrespondents further submits that it is yearly fund allocation and availability\n\nwhich determines the fixation of the minimum days engagement.3                SWP No. 2001/2016Considering the fact that the petitioners have been working as Set\n\nAssistants on said minimum seven days calendar month minimum engagement\n\nbasis with the Doordarshan Kendra Jammu during the entire course of the\n\npendency of the writ petition, as admitted on both sides, this Court deems it fit\n\nthat   the     said    minimum      seven     days    calendar    month    work\n\nengagement/assignment in favour of the petitioners shall continue and the\n\nsame shall not be reduced unless and until the allocation of the yearly PP & SP\n\nfunds for the programme production purposes mandates schedule of the lower\n\nnumber of minimum days without any discrimination amongst similarly\n\nsituated set assistants with all Doordarshan Kendras. It is further directed that\n\nthe grievance of the petitioners as to their unpaid due emolument as accruing\n\non the date of filing of the writ petition from the respondent no. 2 & 3's end be\n\naddressed by the said respondents to clear their respective claims if any as to\n\nsaid unpaid and due emoluments.This writ petition is accordingly disposed off on the consensus\n\nbasis as stated by the learned counsel for the parties.(Rahul Bharti)\n                                                              Judge\nJammu\n01.07.2022\nMuneesh