2007 (2) TMI 727 - SC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of employees from Doordarshan and Akashvani to Prasar Bharati.
2. Whether the employees of Doordarshan and Akashvani continue to be employees of the Central Government or have become employees of Prasar Bharati.
3. The power of Prasar Bharati to transfer employees who are still considered Central Government employees.
4. The failure of the Central Government to exercise its statutory functions under the Prasar Bharati Act.

Summary:

1. Legality of the transfer of employees from Doordarshan and Akashvani to Prasar Bharati:
The respondents were appointed by Doordarshan and Akashvani. The Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, established Prasar Bharati and provided for the transfer of employees from these entities to the Corporation. Section 11 of the Act allows the Central Government to transfer employees to Prasar Bharati, and Sub-section (5) requires employees to exercise an option regarding their service conditions within six months of transfer. However, no formal orders of deputation were issued, and employees continued to work under the same terms as Central Government employees.

2. Whether the employees of Doordarshan and Akashvani continue to be employees of the Central Government or have become employees of Prasar Bharati:
The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the employees remained Central Government employees as no formal transfer orders were issued. The Madras High Court, however, held a different view. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Government failed to exercise its statutory functions, leading to prolonged uncertainty. The Court emphasized that the employees continued to be Central Government employees in the absence of formal transfer orders.

3. The power of Prasar Bharati to transfer employees who are still considered Central Government employees:
The Supreme Court observed that there is a distinction between 'transfer' and 'deputation'. While deputation is temporary, transfer is permanent. The Court held that the situation amounted to deemed deputation, as the employees acted as if they were transferred to Prasar Bharati. The Corporation had functional control over the employees, implying an inherent power to transfer them. The Court cited several precedents to support the view that transfer is an ordinary incident of service and does not necessarily alter service conditions to the employee's disadvantage.

4. The failure of the Central Government to exercise its statutory functions under the Prasar Bharati Act:
The Court criticized the Central Government for not taking a decision under Section 11 of the Act for over nine years, despite the Court's observations. The Court directed the Union of India to take a firm decision within six months and file an affidavit regarding the same.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and directed the Union of India to decide on the transfer of employees under Section 11 of the Prasar Bharati Act within six months. The Court emphasized the need to end the prolonged uncertainty regarding the employees' status. No order as to costs was made.