Holding

The posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent are deemed to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service, and the respondents are departmental candidates entitled to all benefits and promotion under the Rules.

Summary

E Krishna Rao and another, employed on contract as TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent, opted to be treated as government servants under the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990. After twelve years without promotion, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming they were "departmental candidates" entitled to all benefits and promotion under the Rules. The CAT directed the Government to grant them the benefits and consider them for promotion; the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld this order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the posts, though not expressly listed in the Rules, fall within the service by virtue of Rule 6, Rule 2(c) and Note 3 of Schedule I. The Court held that the posts are deemed to be included in the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service, making the respondents departmental candidates entitled to the same pay scales, promotion prospects and other conditions of service. The Court affirmed the Tribunal and High Court decisions, clarifying that existing seniority remains unaffected and that promotion will be considered against vacancies.

Issues considered

Whether the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent are deemed to be part of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service under Rule 6 read with Rule 2(c) and Note 3 of Schedule I.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had jurisdiction to direct the Government to grant promotion and benefits to the respondents.
Whether denial of the benefits and promotion to the respondents, after being declared government servants, is unfair and inequitable.

Legislation cited

Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990

Subjects

Indian Broadcasting Programme Servicedepartmental candidatespromotioncontractual employeesCentral Administrative Tribunalservice rulesfairnessequivalent pay scales

Judgment

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 225 225

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
E KRISHNA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.11948-11950 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 B
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 –
r.6 r/w. r.2(c) and Note 3 of Schedule I – Respondents Nos. 1 & 2
C
were employed on contractual basis by appellants – Thereafter,
respondents were declared Government servants – Respondents
claimed that they were not treated as members of the Indian
Broadcasting Programme Service by the appellants and were not
considered for promotion – Tribunal directed the Government to
grant respondents all benefits under the Rules and consider their D
cases for promotion – High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal
– On appeal, held: It was not in dispute before the High Court that
posts of respondents were regular sanctioned posts – Based on this,
it was held that having due regard to r.6 r/w. r.2(c) and Note 3 of
Schedule I, the posts held by the respondents were deemed to be
E
included in the service – This interpretation of the High Court borne
out of the Rules was correct – As respondents were declared to be
government servants, it was unfair and inequitable to deny to them
all the benefits, including of pay scales and other conditions of
service applicable to posts in the equivalent pay scale – Tribunal
and the High Court were correct in their findings and conclusions F
– Clarification given while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were engaged as TV News
Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent
respectively on contractual basis. Thereafter, the Union Ministry
gave option to the respondents to be treated as Government G
servants, which was accepted by them. However, respondents
were not given promotion for twelve years. Aggrieved, they filed
application before the Tribunal claiming that they were not treated
as members of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service by
the appellants. Tribunal directed the Government to grant
H
225
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A respondents all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases
for promotion. High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Hence, the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. First Respondent was engaged on contract on
B 6th August, 1988 and Second Respondent on 12th August, 1988
respectively. Rule 6 of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service
Rules, 1990 which provides for the initial constitution of the
service stipulates that from the date of the commencement of
the Rules, departmental candidates who held posts on a regular
C basis in the stipulated pay scales would be deemed to have been
appointed to corresponding posts and grades in the service. Rule
2(c) provides for the definition of the expression “departmental
candidates”. The effect of Note 3 to Schedule I is that posts
sanctioned after 1 st January, 1985 in All India Radio and
Doordarshan would be deemed to have been included in the
D service and will be added to the strength shown therein. The
High Court has observed that on the date of the commencement
of the Rules, the pay scales of the applicants were Rs. 3000-4500
and Rs. 2200-4000 respectively. As a result of the deeming
provision in Note 3, it was held that they would be appointed to
E corresponding posts and grades in service. This finding is
unexceptionable. It was not in dispute before the High Court
that the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News
Correspondent were regular sanctioned posts. Based on this, it
was held that having due regard to Rule 6 read with Rule 2(c)
and Note 3 of Schedule I, the posts held by the Respondents
F shall be deemed to have been included in the service. This
interpretation of the High Court is borne out by the Rules. Once
they were declared to be government servants, it would be unfair
and inequitable to deny to them all the benefits, including of pay
scales and other conditions of service applicable to posts in the
G equivalent pay scale. [Para 9] [232-E-F; 233-E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11948-
11950 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2014 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition
H (C) Nos. 5471, 5712 and 14673 of 2001.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. E KRISHNA RAO & ORS. 227

K. K. Rai, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radhalakshmi R., A
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, S. K. Pandey, Anshul Rai, Chandra Shekhar A.
Chakalabbi, S. N. Pandey, Arun Vohra, Chander Shekhar Ashri,
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Rajesh Srivastava, Asit Kumar Roy, Snehasish
Mukherjee, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1.The appeals
arise from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated
20 March 2014. The High Court rejected a challenge to an order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal1 directing the appellants to provide to
the Respondents all benefits of service and to consider their cases for
C
promotions in accordance with the Indian Broadcasting (Programme)
Service Rules 1990.2
2. The First Respondent was engaged as a TV News
Correspondent on contract for a period of five years on 6 August 1988.
The second Respondent was engaged as a TV Assistant News
Correspondent on contract on 12 August 1988. The Rules came into D
effect on 5 November 1990. They did not have a specific provision for
the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News
Correspondent. The Rules define the expression ‘departmental
candidates’ thus:
“(c) “Departmental Candidates” means- E
“(i) Officers appointed on regular basis in consultation with
the commission or on the recommendations of the Departmental
Promotion committee, and who hold posts on regular basis or hold,
lien in Group ‘A’ programme cadre of All India Radio and
Doordarshan on the date of commencement of these rules and F
(ii)All officers appointed on regular basis to the post of video
executive in Doordarshan in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500;”
Rule 6, which provides for the initial constitution of the service,
reads thus:
“6. Initial Constitution of the Service:- G
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3) and () all
departmental candidates holding posts or regular basis in the scales
1
The”Tribunal”
2
The Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990 are referred to in this
judgment as the Rules. H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A of pay of Rs. 5900-6700, Rs.3700-5000, Rs.3000-4500 and
Rs. 2200-4000 shall from the date of commencement of these
rules, be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding
posts and grades in the Service.
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply, to those
B Department Candidates who have been granted Selection Grade
in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000.
(2) (a) The Departmental Candidates referred to in sub-clause
(i) of clause (c) of rule 2 shall be required to convey their options
in writing for inclusion in any one of the four Cadres of the Service.
C (b) In the event of options not being received within the stipulated
time, the Departmental Candidates shall be deemed to have opted
in the respective cadre of the All India Radio or Doordarshan, as
the case may be, where they are working.
Provided that the Departmental Candidates referred to in
D sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of rule 2 shall merge with the
Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan and will maintain
their separate identity as indicated in Schedule VII.
(3) (a) The commission shall constitute a Selection Committee
with the Chairman or a Member of the Commission, as President
E and not more than three representatives of the appropriate status
to be nominated by the Controlling Authority to consider all the
options from the departmental Candidates referred to in sub-rule
(2) and recommend the cadre and the Medium to which such
Departmental Candidates may be appointed, and submit lists of
officers considered suitable for such appointment to the
F
Commission, which shall forward to the Controlling Authority its
recommendations thereon.
(b) The decision of the Controlling Authority in respect of
appointments based on the recommendations of the Commission
shall be final and such appointments shall be deemed to have
G
been made with effect from the date of constitution of the Service.
(c) After such departmental candidates have been so allocated to
a particular Medium or a cadre thereof they will continue to serve
in the cadre of that medium to which they have been so assigned:

H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. E KRISHNA RAO & ORS 229
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Provided that the commission may, while making such A
recommendations, in respect of Departmental candidates, referred
to in sub-rule (2), include a recommendation that officers
considered suitable for appointment to a grade shall, if sufficient
number of vacancies are not available in that grade, continue to
hold the post held by them before the commencement of these
B
rules and for this purpose such posts shall be deemed to have
been excluded from the service so long as such offices continue
to hold the said posts.
Explanation: The absence of a member other than the chairman
or a Member of the Commission shall not invalidate the proceedings
C
of the Selection Committee.
(4) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, officers
referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (3) shall be included in the
Service when vacancies in the said grade are available.
(b) Such persons who are included in the Service at a later date D
will rank–en-bloc junior to the person inducted into the Service at
the initial constitution.
(5) Departmental Candidates who do not desire to be absorbed
in the Service shall, within a period of three months from the date
of commencement of these rules, communicate their decision in E
writing to the Controlling Authority and they shall thereafter and
subject to the other provision of these rules be deemed to continue
to hold the posts held by them immediately before the
commencement of these rules, and for this purpose, such posts
shall be deemed to have been excluded from the Service so long F
as they hold the said posts.
(6) (a) The regular continuous service of Departmental Candidates
prior to their appointment to the Service shall count for purposes
of promotion and confirmation.
G
(b) To the extent the controlling Authority is not able to fill the
authorised strength of the various grades in the service in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, the same shall be
filled in accordance with the provisions of rule 7.”

H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A Note 3 of Schedule I of the IBPS Rules is as follows:
“Note 3, Schedule I of IBPS Rules
“3) The number of posts sanctioned for various schemes after
1.1.1985 in All India Radio and Doordarshan will be deemed to
have been included in the service and such posts will be added to
B the strength shown therein.”
The posts which have been specified in Schedule I together with
their scale of pay are reflected in the following table :

Sl. Grade All India Doordarshan Scale of
C No Radio pay
1 Senior 10 11 Rs.5900-
administrative 200-6700
Grade Deputy
Director General
(Management)
D 2 Junior -* -* Rs. 4500-
Administrative 150-5700
Grade (Selection
grade) Senior
Director
E 3 Junior 44 15 Rs. 3700-
Administrative 125-4700-
Grade Director/ 150-5000
Controller
4 Senior Time Scale 130 32 Rs. 3000-
Deputy Director/ 100-3500-
F Deputy Controller 125-4500
5 Junior Time scale 144 37 Rs. 2200-
Programme 75-2800-
Officer EB-100-
4000
Total 328 95
G
Schedule II provides for the Programme Production Cadre.
3. On 29 November 2011, the Union Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting sought options from the Respondents on whether they
desired to be treated as government servants or whether they wished to
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. E KRISHNA RAO & ORS 231
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

continue as contractual employees. The First Respondent opted to be A
treated as a government servant. On 21 March 1992, the Director of
Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad by a Memorandum bearing no. TVH
/ 23 (6) 92-S) declared the First Respondent as a government servant
with effect from 31 March 1992. The Memorandum reads thus:
“MEMORANDUM B
The option exercised by Shri E KRISHNA RAO in the category
of T. V. NEWS CORRESPONDENT has been considered.
Accordingly Shri E KRISHNA RAO, Doordarshan Kendra,
of Hyderabad, has been declared as Government Servant with effect
from 6.8.88 Vide Director General letter No. 45011/29/91 Bd (R) C
900- dt. 29.11.91.
6700 All the existing rules/regulations and benefits, including
pensionary benefits, the age for retirement etc. Which are
applicable to the regular Civil Government Servants will be
applicable to him/her. Consequently the contract entered into with D
4500- him/her will stand terminated with effect from 6.8.88.
5700
The post of Staff Artists in the category of T.V. NEWS
CORRESPONDENT which was hitherto held by Shri E
KRISHNA RAO is here by converted into Civil post with effect
3700- from 6.8.88 without change of designation. The fee scales in which E
4700- She/he is employed will from 6.8.88 be considered as pay scales
5000 of the corresponding post and the fee drawn by him/her will be
the pay drawn by him/her with effect from 6.8.88. This post would
3000- be treated to have been created as temporary post with effect
3500- from 6.8.88 to be converted into permanent post in due course in
4500 accordance with the prescribed procedure. F
2200-
800- For Director.”
00- Administrative Officer”

The Memorandum states that all the rules/regulations and benefits, G
including pensionary benefits, age of retirement etc., which are applicable
to regular government servants, would also apply to the First Respondent
with effect from 6 August 1988, thereby terminating the contract which
he had entered into at the time of his recruitment. The Second Respondent
was similarly declared to be a government servant.
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A 4. The Respondents were not given any promotion for twelve
years. Aggrieved by this, they filed OA 916 of 1999 and OA 1010 of
1999 before the CAT, claiming that they had not received any promotion,
as they were not treated as members of the Indian Broadcasting
Programme Service by the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the
applications of the Respondents and directed the government to grant
B
them all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases for promotion.
5. The appellants challenged the order of the Tribunal before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. They submitted that since the posts of
TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent have
not been included in the Rules, the Respondents cannot be considered
C for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade (selection grade)
and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction.
6. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that acceptance
by the Respondents of benefits under the Annual Career Progression
scheme did not disentitle them to get equivalent pay scales. The High
D Court examined the meaning of the expression ‘departmental candidate’
in Rule 2 (c) alongwith Rule 6 and Note 3 of Schedule I. The High Court
held:
“A bare perusal of above definition would clearly go to show that
the person who holds posts on regular basis can also be treaded
E as “department candidate”. It is not in dispute before this Court
that by virtue of proceedings dated 31 March 1992 the applicants
were declared as Government Servants with retrospective effect
from 6 August 1988 and 12 August 1988 respectively. Therefore
the applicants fit into the definition of “department candidate” as
F defined under Section 2 (c) of the IBPS Rules, 1990. Rule 6 of
the IBPS Rules is that subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2),
(3) and (4) all departmental candidates holding posts on regular
basis in the scales of pay of Rs. 5900-6700, Rs. 3700-5000, Rs.
3000-4500 and Rs. 2200-4000 shall, from the dates of
commencement of these Rules, be deemed to have been appointed
G to the corresponding posts and grades in the Service.”
Hence, the High Court held that the Respondents fulfill the
definition of a departmental candidate under section 2(c) of the Rules.
Rule 6 provides that subject to the provisions of sub- rules (2), (3) and
(4), all departmental candidates holding posts on a regular basis in the
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. E KRISHNA RAO & ORS 233
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

scales of pay of Rs. 5900-6700, Rs. 3700-5000, Rs. 3000-4500 and A
Rs. 2200-4000, shall, from the date of commencement of the Rules, be
deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts and grades
in the Service. The High Court has also relied on Note 3 of Schedule I to
the Rules, under which posts sanctioned for various schemes in All India
Radio and Doordarshan after 1 January 1985 are deemed to have been
B
included in the service and such posts shall be added to the strength of
the cadre.
7. Intervention Applications have been filed. The intervenors state
that they fall in the same category as the First and Second Respondents
and hence the Rules should also apply to them. It was also submitted
that the Petitioner offered promotion to the First and Second Respondents C
and to similar persons after a probation of 2 years, but even after its
completion they were not promoted. The Intervenors have also submitted
in their written submissions that two days after the final hearing on 9
August 2018, the appellants published a Gazette notification online
showing truncated Recruitment Rules 2014 that exclude the Group A D
posts of TV Assistant News Correspondents to prevent the affected
parties from benefitting.
8. On hearing the submissions made by the Petitioner and the
Respondents, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High court
are correct in their findings and conclusions. E
9. Rule 6 which provides for the initial constitution of the service
stipulates that from the date of the commencement of the Rules,
departmental candidates who held posts on a regular basis in the stipulated
pay scales would be deemed to have been appointed to corresponding
posts and grades in the service. Rule 2(c) provides for the definition of F
the expression “departmental candidates”. The effect of Note 3 to
Schedule I is that posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985 in All India
Radio and Doordarshan would be deemed to have been included in the
service and will be added to the strength shown therein. The High Court
has observed that on the date of the commencement of the Rules, the
pay scales of the applicants were Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 2200-4000 G
respectively. As a result of the deeming provision in Note 3, it was held
that they would be appointed to corresponding posts and grades in
service. This finding is unexceptionable. It was not in dispute before the
High Court that the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant
News Correspondent were regular sanctioned posts. Based on this, it H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.

A was held that having due regard to Rule 6 read with Rule 2(c) and Note
3 of Schedule I, the posts held by the Respondents shall be deemed to
have been included in the service. This interpretation of the High Court
is borne out by the Rules. Once they were declared to be government
servants, it would be unfair and inequitable to deny to them all the benefits,
including of pay scales and other conditions of service applicable to posts
B
in the equivalent pay scale.
10. While affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, we clarify that
(i) promotions which have already been effected and the existing
seniority shall not be affected;
C (ii) in the case of employees who have retired, a notional pay fixation
shall be carried out and retiral benefits, including pension, if any,
shall be determined on that basis; and
(iii) individual cases for promotion would be considered against
vacancies available, keeping seniority in view.
D
11. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.

E Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.

F

G

H