DATE v. The Central Administrative Tribunal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN AND WRIT PETITION No.2O1O3 OF 2o25l Between DATE: 22.OL.2O26 The Director General, Doordarshan and 4 others ....Petitioners AND The Central Administrative Tribunal and another ORDER ..Respondents This Writ Petition assails the order dated L3.L2.2O24 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A.No.265 of 2A16, whereby the Tribunal allowed the said application and directed the petitioners to regularise the services of the second respondent with effect from 16.L2.2OO3, together with all consequential and attendant benefits, including pay fixation under successive Pay Commissions, grant of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits, payment of interest at the rate of 9uh per annum in the event of delay, and costs quantified at Rs.25,OOOl-. 2

2. I{eard Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, rearned counsel for the p,:titioners and Smt. p.Kalyani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. 3- 'l'he brief facts of the case are that the 2"d respondent was initialllr engaged as a casual Make-up Assistant at Doordarshan Kendrer, Hyderabad, in the year 1985. Subsequently, pursuant to direr:tions issued by the courts, a Scheme for Regularisation of casrral Artists was introduced in the year 1992 (for short the schemt:J. As per the said scheme, regularisation was permissible only against a duly sanctioned vacancy and subject to the casual artist having rendered not less than 120 days of work irr a calendar year.

4. 'l'he 2"d respondent was found to be other,,r,ise eligible under the said scheme. However, at the relevant point of time, no sanctioned vacancy in the other Backward classes (oBC) category for the post of Make-up Assistant was available at Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad.

5. Irr the year 2OO3, the petitioners initiated a proposal to shift a ,sanctioned vacancy from Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow, to Hyderabad for the purpose of considering the case of the second respondent. The said vacancy, hou,ever, was subject matter of a pending writ petition in w.p.No .2BTs of 2oo1 filed by another casual employee before the Lucknow Bench of the \ \ J Allahabad High Court, which came to be disposed of only in December,2Ol4.

6. Thereafter, in a special drive undertaken in the year 2015, the 2nd respondent \r,as regularised prospectively with effect from 03.06.2015 along w,ith 232 other similarly placed casual artists. Aggrieved by the non-grant of retrospective regularisation from the year 2OO3 or an earlier date, the 2"d respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.265 of 20t6.

7. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, allowed the application and issued directions for retrospective regularisation with consequential benefits.

8. Questioning the legality and correctness of the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended: i. That the directions issued by the Tribunal for retrospective regularisation are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Sto,te of Karno,takq. and, others u. Umadeui and othersr, wherein it has been categorically held that regularisation cannot be ordered dehors the constitutional scheme of recruitment and in the absence of a duly sanctioned vacancy. 'lzooo;4 scc r I ii. That the Scheme itself mandated that regularisation could be effected only against an existing sanctioned vacancy. According to the petitioners, no sanctioned vacancy in the OBC category for the post of Make_up Assistant was available at Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad, till the year 2OL4-IS. iii That although a proposal was initiated in the year 2o03 to shift a sanctioned vacancy from Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow, to Hyderabad for considering the case of the 2nd respondent, the said proposal could not be implemented on account of the pendency of W.p.No .2g75 of 2OO1 before the Allahabad High Court, which was beyond the control of the petitioners. iv. That the Tribunal failecl to consider rhe Office Memorandum dated 11.06.2010 issued b_y the Department of Personnel and Training, '*,hich clarifies that casual service cannot be reckoned for seniority or other service benefits. v. That at the time of the 2"d respondent's regurarisation in the year 2015, the 2nd respondent had furnished a written declaration undertaking that he would not claim any benefits for the period prior to the date of regularisation. Despite the same, the Tribunal erroneously directed grant of retrospective benefits. The , I E E { : 3t ;; :l 5 said declaration is extracted hereunder for ready reference: (iil I also declare that I am wilting to be posted anywhere in India in the euent ts considered for mg regular appointment under Regularisation Scheme of Doordarshan 1992 & 1994 against the uacancies auailable at the Kendras other than the one ulten I was tnitiallg engaged as casual and worked prior to 31.12.1991. (iu) **"*t' (u) I solemnly declare that I wtll not clatm seniority and other conseEtent benefits whatsoeuer from the date of mg initial engagement and all the in-seruice benefits would accrue to me from the date of mg regular appointment. vi. That the direction to grant arrears of pay from the year 2003 amounts to payment of wages lor a period during which the 2"d respondent was neither appointed against a regular post nor discharging duties in a regular capacity, which is impermissible in law. vii. That the award of costs quantified at t{s.25,O00/- was assailed as unwarranted, in the absence of any wilful delay or malafid.e conduct on the part of the petitioners.

10. The learned counsel for the 2,d respondent supported the impugned order of the Tribunal and contended: i. That the petitioners themselves had approved the proposal for shifting of a sanctioned vacancy from Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow, to Hyderabad as early as

16.12.2003, which clearly demonstrates that a vacancy ,/ / / 6 1l \^.aS available for the purpose of regularising the services of the second resPondent' T'hat the pendency of the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court was merely cited as a reason to indelinitelypostponeregularisation,andthatthesaidwrit petition ultimately came to be dismissed' thereby removing any impediment to regularisation' ,lhat the petitioners had regularised juniors and other similarly situated casual artists from earlier dates, while denying similar treatment to the second respondent' which amounts to hostile discrimination and violation of Articlesl4andl6ofthcConstitutionoflndia. That the 2.d respondent had rendered continuous service for more than three decades, which' according to learned counsel, gave rise to a legitimate expectation of regularisationfromthedatehebecameeligibleunderthe scheme. v Thattheundertakingfurnishedatthetimeof regularisationin2o|s,,.l,asobtainedunderCompulsion and cannot operate as a waiver of statutory or constitutionalrights,andthattheTribunalrightly exerciseditsequitablejurisdictionandgrantedreliefin favour of the 2rd respondent in the interest of justice. \ \ _1/ 7

11. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material on record. Consideration bv this Court L2. In the present case the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the communication dated L6.12.2OO3, whereby a proposal was initiated to shift a sanctioned vacancy from Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow, to Hyderabad, conferred an enforceable right upon the 2"d respondent to claim regularisation with effect from the said date. Such an assumption, in our considered view, is legally unsustainable.

13. The Apex Court in Stqte of Haryana u. Subash Chander Marutq.ha2 has held that the mere existence of a vacancy, or even a proposal to create, fill, or transfer a vacancy, does not vest any indefeasible right in an employee to seek appointment or regularisation against the same. L4. [t is pertinent to note that even assuming that a vacancy was proposed to be shifted in the year 20O3, the record reveals that the said vacancy was subject to the outcome of pending litigation before the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2875 of 2OOl. Until the said litigation attained linality in December, 2014, the vacancy remained legally encumbered and unavailable for regularisation. In such circumstances, no 'gez+1 3 scc 22o 8 -{ enforr:eable right could have accrued in favour of the 2rd respo:edent prior to 2015. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme court in tlntad.eui's case (supra 1), has authoritatively held that regularisation is not a rnode of appointment andthat courts cannot direct regularisation in the absence of sanctioned posts or in derogation of the constitutional scheme of public employment. 16. It is to be noted that the Scheme itself reflects compliance ',nith the principles enunciated in tlmadeui's case (supra l), inasnruch as it restricts regularisation strictly to available sanctioned vacancies. The direction issued by the Tribunal to grant re trospectivc regularisation from 2oo3, despite the admitted absence of a clear and unencumbered vacancy at Hyderabad during the relevant period, effectively results in creation of a backdated vacancy, which is impermissible in law. 17. Further, a material aspect which has not received due consileration by the Tribunal is the decraration-cum- unde::taking furnished by the 2nd respondent while seeking regul;rrisation under the special drive undertaken between 2ol2 and 2015. By the said undertaking, the 2"d respondent expressly acknowledged that his regularisation would be prostr)ective, that he would be placed junior to all regularly appointed employees, and that he would not claim seniority or 9 other consequential benelits from the date of his initial engagement.

18. Such an undertaking cannot be treated as a mere formality. Having consciously accepted regularisation on the said terms and availed the benelit thereof, the 2"d respondent is estopped from resiling from the conditions voluntarily agreed to by him. Therefore, the Doctrine of Estoppel squarely applies, and the Tribunal erred in disregarding the legal effect of the said undertaking.

19. It is to be noted that the Oflice Memorandum dated

11.06.201O issued by the Department of Personnel and Training categorically clarifies that casual service shall not be reckoned for seniority or other service benefits. This position was reiterated in the regularisation order issued in favour of the 2"4 respondent in 2015. The said portion of the Oflice Memorandum is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

1. In the matter regarding regularization of casual Artists as per Regularization Scheme of 1992 & 1994, it has been clarified bg DOP&T uide letter dated 1lth June, 2010, "that the seruices rendered bg the Producfion Asststanfs on casual basis would not count for the purpose of their senioritg in that grade. Theg will not be entitled to any consequential benefits and senioritg from the date of initial booktng as casual artist".

20. Further the Tribunal's direction to grant seniority and attendant financial benelits from the year 2OO3 runs contrary to the said clarification, the governing scheme, and the express terms of regularisation accepted by the 2nd respondent. l0 2L. While the long and continuous association of the 2nd respondent with the establishment may evoke sympathetic consider:rtion, Equitable principles cannot override binding Constitutional mandates, statutory schemes, and voluntary undertakings. Legitimate expectation, howsoever genuine, cannot b,: elevated to a legal right in the absence of compliance with the iloverning rules and availability of a sanctioned post.

22. In regard to the imposition of costs by the Tribunal on the ground of administrative delay, it is to be noted that the delay in rcgularisation was substantially occasioned by pendency of litigation beyond the control of the petitioners. In the absence of any finding of mala ftde or deliberate inaction, the imposition of costs wa:i unwarranted and calls for interference.

23. Subsequent to the conclusion of hearing, learned counsel for 2"d rt:spondent, by way of mentioning, placed on record the order in O.A.Nos.729 of 2018 and T2S of 2ol9s and judgments rendered in Dharam Singh and others u. State of U.P and' othersa, Rajkaran Singh and. others u. tlnion of India and otherss, S.D. Jagaprakash and others a. (Inion of India a,nd others6, and Centro,l Inland Water Transpor.t, Cotporation Ltd. a. Brojo Nath Gangulgz which she sought to 3 Central Fdministrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O. A. Nos. 2(i O / OO 129 / 20 1 8&T 25 I 20 I 9 dated 26.O9.2025 4 AIR 2025 SC 3897 5' ArR 2024 SC 4321 6 SLP (C) Itlos. 19539- 19540 of 2021 dated 29.04.2025 7 AIR 198€, SC 1571 \ \ rely upon. The said judgments have also been taken into consideration by this court to ensure a complete and comprehensive adjudication of the issues involved. In this regard, this court finds that the reliance placed by the 2,d respondent on the following cases does not advance the cause of respondent No.2 employee for the following reasons: i. In O.A.lVos. 129 of 2Ot8 and 725 of 2Ot9 (supra 3/, the cAT, cuttack Bench recorded a categorical finding that a specilic, identilied and unencumbered vacancy stood created in favour of the applicants pursuant to an office Memorandum dated 10.11.1995, whereby two sanctioned posts were expressly diverted "with immediate effect" for the sole purpose of regularizing the services of the named individuals. The vacancy, thus, was found to be real, available, and attributable to the applicants from the said date, and the prolonged delay in issuing formal orders of regularization was held to be purely administrative and unjustified. In stark contrast, the communication dated

16.12-2oo3 was merely a proposal to shift a vacancy from Lucknow to Hyderabad. The said vacancy was not available, being subject to adjudication in w.p.No.2g7s of 2ool pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court, which constituted a clear legal impediment t2 until its disposal in December 2014. The resulting delay, therefore, cannot be attributed to administrative inaction or arbitrariness, but arose from circumstances beyond the control of the appellants, there being final or exe,lutable order akin to the Oflice Memorandum dated 1O. I 1. 1995 prior to the special drive of 2015. Further, unlike in O.A.No.l29 of 2018, the present ma[ter is distinguished by a written undertaking dated

09.11 .2012 furnished by the 2"d respondent, whereby he unr:quivocally waived any claim to seniority or cor:.sequential benefits prior to his regular appointment, giving rise to estoppel against retrospective ciaims; a determinative factor absent in the Cuttack proceedings. In the light of the above reasons, the CAT, Cuttack orcer, which turned on its own peculiar facts, cannot be tre,eted as a precedent governing the present controversy. 11 In Dharam Singh (supra 4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with daily-wage employees discharging perennial and core ministerial functions of a statutory bo,1y, where the employer itself had repeatedly sought sarrction of posts acknowledging a continuing administrative necessity. The Court found the State's relusal to create posts to be arbitrary, there being no legal impediment to such creation. The present case stands on \ \ \ l3 Ill a different footing artogether, as the engagement of the 2nd respondent was under a specific scheme governing casuar artists, and the alleged vacancy itself was legally encumbered by pending litigation. Thus, no finding of arbitrariness in the employer's conduct can be drawn. In Rajkaran Singh (supra S) the employees, though labelled as tempof?ry, were found to be fulry assimilated into the regurar governmental structure, drawing regular pay scales, increments, promotions and aflowances for decades, thereby warranting parity in substance over form. The 2"d respondent herein, by contrast, remained a casual artist governed by the Lgg2 scheme, without integration into a regular cadre or parity in pay and service benefits prior to his regularization in 2015. The decision in S.D. Jagaprakash (supra 6) turned entirely on the mandatory application of Rule 17 of the ccS (Pension) Rures, Lgr2, which entitled a regurarized employee to count prior contractual service for pension. The present case does not arise under the said statutory rule' but under a specific administrative scheme, and is further distinguished by the 2nd respondent,s express written waiver of retrospective claims. Thus, the ratio of Jagapralcash's case cannot be mechanicalry extended to v override the terms of the scheme and the binding un<Iertaking. In centrar Inland' water Transport corporation Ltd.. (sulrra 7) it dealt with the varidity of an unconscionabre sen'ice rule permitting arbitrary termination without cause or hearing, and the consequent application of Artir:les 12 and 14 of the constitution and Section 23 of the Contract Act. Ho,w,ever, the present case does not relare to termination or oppressive contractuar terms, but concerns service jurisprudence on regurarization against sanctioned vacancies and the effect of a voluntary waiver of rer:rospective claims. The 2na respondent herein was not subjr:cted to arbitrary termination; rather, he was regularized in accordance with the appricabre scheme and thereafter sought retrospective regularization and conse'quentiar benefits despite the absence of a crear vacancy and in the face of a binding waiver. Thus, the said judgment affords no support to the second respondent's claim. 24' Upon carefur consideration, this court is of the view that the reliance placed by the 2nd respondent on the aforesaid judgments does not advance the cause of the 2.d respondent, as the same ar: distinguishable on facts, circumstances, and the \ .ffi! \l ,i i ', I I 1 : ! i : i I I I I , j t I l5 context in which they were rendered; and therefore have no application to the facts of the present case. Conclusion

25. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunar is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal erred in proceeding on the assumption that a proposal for transfer of a vacancy confers a vested right to regularisation. The Tribunal also failed to accord due weight to the binding undertaking furnished by the 2na respondent, and issued directions contrary to the settled principles governing public employment. The impugned directions are contrary to the applicable regularisation scheme and the clarifications governing reckoning of casual service and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 26. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal, in o.A.No.265 of 2016. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed SD/ . JAWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER I I

1. The Director General, Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhavan, copernicus Marg' 2. The Director General (Administration), Doordarshan Bhavan' 5t11 floor' New Delhi- 110 001 Mandi house, New Delhi- 1 10001'

3. The Director, Doordarshan Kendraa, Ramantapur' Hyderabad' a The CtrO Prasar Bharathi, 2nd floor, PTI Building, Sansad Marg' New Delhi- To, ' ::. .!, '4 { * : I

5. The Un on of lndia, Bgp b-V_ its Principal Secretary, Ministry of lnformaton anct Broadcasting, Room No. 655, A Wing Shastri Bhivan, trtew Oettri- t tOOO1. 6. The cerrtralAdministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad 7. One CC: to SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNIv|ENT [OPUC] 8. one cc to sRl K.L.N RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocate topucl 9. One CC to SRI P.KALYAN|, Advocate [OpUC] 10.Two CD Copies I PMK BS v, HIGH COURT DATED:2:.210112026 \ 1 ORDER WP.No.20103 of 2A2S I^5E (_f 0 6 lllAfr 2026 7 c! I\ * * ParcH , I , ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 3 3