Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
K S Ravindra vs Doordarshan on 29 April, 2026
1
O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00437/2025
Order Reserved on: 13.04.2026
Date of Order: 29.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
K.S. Ravindra,
S/o late K. Siddappasetty,
Aged 59 Years
Working as Cameraman Grade-II (Ad-hoc),
Doordarshan Kendra,
J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru- 560 006,
R/at No. T-6, Shivaganga Temple view,
3rd Main, 2nd Stage, (near ISCKON vaikunta hills),
Bengaluru- 560 061. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ranganatha S. Jois)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting,
Corporation of India,
Doordarshan Bhavan,
SHAINECAT
SHAINEY VIJU
BANGALORE
2026.04.29
Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
'C'- wing, Coopernicus Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Director General,
Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati Broadcasting
Corporation of India,
Doordarshan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant to the Applicant the service benefits in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and others Vs Union of India and others in Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19539-19540/2021 dated 29.04.2025 vide Annexure - A8, by counting their service from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits and pay protection as also MACP in terms of the order of regularization and extend all the monetary benefits to the Applicant;
b) PASS such orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the following grounds:
"i. As can be seen from the narration of the facts stated by the Applicants, it is clear that the Applicants was appointed as Cameraman Grade-II with effect from 16/2/1993 in the regular pay scale and they were granted the pay scales as revised from time to time by treating them as regular employees and the appointment was made after due process of selection only defect was that their initial appointment was by the Department instead of through Union Public Service Commission. Similar is the case of Jayaprakash and others who were appointed by the Department and not by the UPSC. However, the procedure relating to appointment was duly followed. Therefore, they were granted the pay scale as revised from time to time and their services were regularised on 31/12/2013 though they were entitled for regularisation from 2003 as the judgment of the Apex court was that the employees who were appointed irregularly but not illegal are entitled to regualarsation as one time measure on completion of 10 years of service. Therefore, the Applicants are entitled to be regularised atleast from 2003 on which date they completed 10 years of service. In the case of Jayprakash and others, this Hon'ble Tribunal allowed the applications regarding pay scale, increment and other service benefits and their protection of the service benefits till the date of regularisation and even directed payment of pensionary benefits but the said order was modified by the High Court of Karnataka to the extent of denying pension but protecting all other benefits. Therefore, the Applicants are also entitled for the service benefits in SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE terms of judgement of S.D.Jayaprakash and others.
ii. So far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, the Applicants herein strongly relies on judgement of the Apex court in said case of S.D.Jayaprakash and others, who were appointed temporarily on Adhoc basis / contract basis initially and were regularised subsequently as per the judgement in Umadevi's case. The Hon'ble Apex Court following the judgement of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Veena Devi directed that the services rendered on adhoc / contract basis from the date of their adhoc appointment shall be counted for fixing the pensionary benefits and other service benefits. Therefore, the present Applicants are also similarly situated and is at the verge of retirement is entitled for settlement of pensionary benefits by counting the service rendered on Adhoc basis from 1993 till the date of regularization in the year 2013. The denial of the same will be clearly violative of Article 14,16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
iii. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that pension is not a bounty but is a deferred payment of salary at the evening of the life of a government servant and the long service rendered by the employee right from the date of initial appointment which was irregular but not illegal, requires to be counted for pensionary benefits. So far as the MACP is concerned, the very order of regularisation stated that they are entitled to grant of MACP from the data of regularization ie., 31/12/2013. Since they have put in more than 12 years from the date of regularization, they are also entitled for SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE MACP in terms of the very order of regularization. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Srivastava Vs Union of India &others has held that person similarly situated should be extended the benefits on the basis of the law declared by a court of law and they should not be forced to approach the court repeatedly for the same relief. In the instant case admittedly, the Applicants are similarly situated with Sri.Jayaprakash and others, employees of NSSO of the Union of India who were initially appointed on contract basis and regularised and earlier service has been counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and also for pay protection etc. Therefore, equitable justice demands that the Applicants are also entitled for the said relief."
3. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the synopsis, are that:
The applicant was appointed as Cameraman Grade II in Doordarshan on Ad-hoc basis on 11.3.1993. In pursuance of the representation of the applicant and orders of the Court, he was regularized with effect from 13.12.2013. Thereafter, the applicant and similarly situated employees have been demanding the benefit on par with the regularly appointed as Cameraman Grade-II.
The applicant along with similarly situated employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE O.A No.1779/2016 seeking for direction to the respondents to anti date their regular appointment from 2013 to 1999 with consequential benefits. The Principal Bench of this Tribunal by an order dated 01.04.2021 in O.A No.1779/2016 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant on par with others.
In pursuance of the said order, the respondent no.3 on 30.07.2021 passed order agreeing to treat them on par with the regular employee of Cameraman Grade-II but declined to anti-date of regularization. The applicant has filed O.A 441/2021 under section 19 of the AT Act, 1985. This Tribunal dismissed the application and denied the regularization of the service from the date of initial appointment in O.A No.441/2021 vide order dated 01.06.2023.
The applicant is now filing the present O.A seeking for counting of the services rendered from 11.3.1993 their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis till the date of regularization in 2013 to be counted for pensionary benefits in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.D.Jayaprakash and Others. V. Union of India and Others in Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 arising out of SLP© No.19539-19540/2021.
In fact all the procedure for recruitment rules have been complied with and only given regular pay scale and increments but SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE appointment was termed as ad-hoc. Therefore, the appointment is at best can be said as irregular and not illegal as the Applicant is also at the verge of retirement. Hence, this application. The Applicant is now filing the present application seeking for counting of the services rendered from 11/3/1993 their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis till the date of regularization in 2013 to be counted for pensionary benefits in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and others v. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19539- 19540/2021. Hence, this application for reliefs.
4. This Original Application has been filed with the limited claim of directing the respondents to grant to the applicant the service benefits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and others v. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19539- 19540/2021 dated 29.04.2025 vide Annexure - A8, by counting their service from their date of initial appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits and pay protection as also MACP in terms of the order of regularization and extend all the monetary benefits to the Applicant.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
5. On notice, respondents have filed their reply statement to the O.A. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant thereafter. Through M.A No.116/2026, an Additional reply statement has been filed by the respondents which was allowed on 09.03.2026. Vide Memo dated 02.04.2026, certain case laws have also been filed by the applicant.
6. The case came up for final hearing on 13.04.2026. Learned counsel Shri Ranganatha S. Jois for the applicant and Shri S. Sugumaran for the respondents were present and heard.
7. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
8. In the reply statement, the respondents stated that, as per the recruitment rules, the post of Cameraman Grade-II was to be filled 100% by direct recruitment through UPSC and as Doordarshan was facing acute shortage of Cameraman Grade-II during the 1990s for against the sanctioned strength of 509 Cameraman Gr-II, only 284 were in position in the year 1992 and the recruitment through UPSC was a time-consuming process, it was decided to resort to ad-hoc appointment of Cameraman. And in the year 1993-94, 88 ad-hoc SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE cameraman grade-II were appointed, purely on a temporary basis to meet the contingency as a stop-gap arrangement. Initially, these ad- hoc appointments were made for a maximum period of one year or till the appointment was made through UPSC on a regular basis, whichever was earlier. Extension of ad-hoc appointments was made from time to time till 31.12.1997 with the approval of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and the concurrence of DoPT. That being so, on the requisition of Doordarshan, vacancies were published by UPSC for 225 Cameraman Gr-II in Employment News dated 28 October - 3 November 1995 edition. 88 ad-hoc Cameraman working on the above basis in Doordarshan had also applied through UPSC for the posts along with other candidates and out of 88, 54 have been declared qualified by UPSC and later in 1999, they had joined as regular Cameraman Gr-II along with other successful candidates.
9. However, the remaining 24 Cameraman Grade-II could not qualify for selection in UPSC and continued to serve on ad-hoc basis as still shortage of Cameraman Gr-II was being felt in the Doordarshan. Later in 2013, Prasar Bharati had regularized the applicant along with the 22 other Cameraman who were on ad-hoc basis temporary as regular Prasar Bharati employees. Before SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE regularisation, an undertaking was given by the applicant along with the 22 other Cameraman wherein they agreed with the terms & Conditions offered by Prasar Bharati.
10. Respondents further submit that now these 22 other Cameraman who have been in regular service since 2013 are demanding benefits since 1993 and being failed candidates in UPSC and having given an undertaking to the effect that they will not claim pensionary benefits, their demand is unreasonable.
11. They further point out that in their earlier offer of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the ad-hoc appointment will not entitle them to seniority, promotion, pension or claim for regular appointment to the post, etc. Having accepted the conditions of the offer issued by the respondents, the applicant was extended ad-hoc serve temporarily. Hence, the respondents contend that the applicant cannot now claim anything more. Accordingly, the respondents have issued a Speaking Order dated 30.7.2021 in pursuance of the directions of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 01.04.2021 in OA No.1779/2016, where in the applicant was also a party to the OA SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
12. The respondents submit that the applicant is receiving annual increments regularly, and his pay was revised as and when Prasar Bharati accepted the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. The applicant is entitled to MACP and allied benefits etc., as admissible to other similarly placed Prasar Bharati Employees.
13. In their para-wise reply, particularly, reply to para 4.1 of the Original Application, wherein the applicant has mentioned that the applicant was appointed as Cameraman Grade-II against the vacancies notified in the Employment Newspaper in 1992. He was duly selected after scrutinizing his eligibility criteria and following the reservation policy for the post. The applicant has been successful in the prescribed practical test and the interview. On the other hand, they have been selected and appointed as such following the due procedure prescribed for regular recruitment for the post. The applicant has been offered an appointment to the post on similar terms. But his appointment was indicated as on ad-hoc basis, as evident from the appointment order. The applicant was appointed as a Cameramen Grade-II vide order dated 11.3.1993.
Whereas in the reply statement, the respondents, in their paragraph 14, against the averments in the O.A at para 4.1, submit that SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE it is respectfully submitted that the contents of this para, to the extent they suggest that the applicant was "duly selected" through a regular recruitment process, are denied.
14. Further, they aver that the applicant was never recruited through UPSC, which is the only competent authority prescribed under the notified Recruitment Rules for making appointments to the post of Cameraman Grade-II. As per the Gazette Notification dated 05.12.1987 (Annexure-I), the post of Cameraman Grade-II is to be filled 100% by Direct Recruitment through UPSC.
15. We have examined the full submissions of both parties. The denial in paragraph 14 of the reply statement regarding the 1992-93 selection is notably cryptic and does not dislodge the factual substratum emerging from the record. What clearly emerges is that the applicant's appointment suffered from procedural irregularity, limited only to the non-adherence to the prescribed mode of recruitment through UPSC under the Gazette Notification dated 05.12.1987. However, the surrounding facts--existence of sanctioned vacancies, issuance of public notice, adherence to eligibility criteria roster etc., and conduct of a selection process--demonstrate that the appointment cannot be characterised as illegal or a backdoor entry. SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
16. The respondents themselves admit acute shortage and administrative exigency. Therefore, the appointment was institutionally necessitated, not clandestinely engineered. The distinction between irregularity and illegality, as recognised in service jurisprudence, becomes decisive. The applicant's engagement, though not strictly compliant with the recruitment rules, was nevertheless rooted in a structured, transparent, and necessity-driven process, thereby falling within the category of irregular but not illegal appointment.
17. The reliance by the respondents on the applicant's failure in the 1995 UPSC examination as a disqualifying factor for all future claims is legally unsustainable. This argument suffers from a fundamental flaw: it attempts to retrospectively invalidate two decades of accepted and utilised service.
18. Failure in a competitive examination cannot retrospectively negate:
* prior selection through a departmental process, * continued engagement by the employer, and * absence of any adverse material regarding performance.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Rather, the continued utilisation of the applicant's services post-1995 reflects institutional endorsement of functional competence, even if not of formal selection pedigree. The argument of "lack of merit" is contradicted by the respondents' own conduct.
19. More significantly, the continuation of the applicant from 1993 to 2013, followed by regularisation, operates as a waiver and institutional condonation of the initial procedural irregularity. The State cannot simultaneously:
* benefit from long-term service, and * deny its legal consequences.
Although the regularisation of the applicant does not relate back automatically, but its complete negation for counting for pension would appear iniquitous and unfair. Regularisation in 2013 is not a gratuitous act; it is an acknowledgment that the applicant's service met the threshold of institutional necessity and functional legitimacy creating a continuity for pensionary equity. Once such regularisation occurs, the State cannot artificially sever continuity for at least pensionary purposes in the unusual facts and circumstances of the applicant.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
20. The reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 must be carefully contextualised. That judgment addresses entry into public service and safeguards the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 against arbitrary recruitment.
However, the present case is doctrinally distinct. The applicant is not seeking entry, regularisation, or seniority, but only recognition of past service for pension. The constitutional tension in Uma Devi-- between individual claims and rights of competing aspirants--does not arise here.
21. Thus, the respondents' invocation of Uma Devi is misplaced when applied to post facto service recognition, particularly where:
* service has already been rendered, * regularisation has already occurred, and * no third-party rights are affected.
22. The issue, therefore, must be reframed. It is not a question of validity of entry, but of equity and legality of service recognition. Pension is not a tool of recruitment policy; it is a measure of social security and deferred compensation.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules must be interpreted in light of:
* the nature of duties performed, * continuity of service, and * employer conduct.
Where the employee has performed identical duties as regular employees, denial of pensionary recognition creates an artificial and unjust classification.
23. Let us first examine the case of the applicant on the touchstone of the ratio of judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein the main ratios of the case is as encapsulated in paragraph 41 of the said order examining catena of earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Courts in cases of irregular and illegal appointments where based on violation of Article 21 and reading them with various provisions of directive principles of state policy, various courts had been asking for regularisation of such appointments which may be irregular and sometimes even illegal and in violation of the rules prescribed for such appointment and considering and explaining the right of individual under Article 21. In Uma Devi case, the rights SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE of such irregular/illegal entrants to public service has been framed against the right in rem of every poor un employed citizen of the country who has aspiration for public employment which is violated by giving precedence to right under Article 21 of such irregular appointees vis-à-vis Article 14 and 16 rights of teaming millions, and the Hon'ble Court has ruled the following:
"41. It is argued that in a country like India where there is so much poverty and unemployment and there is no equality of bargaining power, the action of the State in not making the employees permanent, would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. But the very argument indicates that there are so many waiting for employment and an equal opportunity for competing for employment and it is in that context that the Constitution as one of its basic features, has included Articles 14, 16 and 309 so as to ensure that public employment is given only in a fair and equitable manner by giving all those who are qualified, an opportunity to seek employment. In the guise of upholding rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a set of persons cannot be preferred over a vast majority of people waiting for an opportunity to compete for State employment. The acceptance of the argument on behalf of the respondents would really negate the rights of the others conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution, assuming that we are in a position to hold that the right to employment is also a right coming within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. The argument that Article 23 of the Constitution is breached because the employment on daily wages amounts to forced labour, cannot be accepted.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE After all, the employees accepted the employment at their own volition and with eyes open as to the nature of their employment. The Governments also revised the minimum wages payable from time to time in the light of all relevant circumstances. It also appears to us that importing of these theories to defeat the basic requirement of public employment would defeat the constitutional scheme and the constitutional goal of equality."
24. In the present case, the applicant has already lost the case of regularisation retrospectively from the date of his appointment/within ten years of their ad-hoc appointment, but the respondents have regularised him in 2013. And when at the touchstone of this ruling in paragraph 41 is examined vis-à-vis the present request of the applicant about considering the length of their service as "qualifying service"
for pension, the same cannot be framed as their rights under Article 21 and vis-à-vis rights of other aspirants under Article 14 and 16, as the applicant have already worked for long. The right to claim qualifying service has to do only with a relationship which is between the employer and employee and not impinging upon the rights in rem under Article 14 and 16 of other aspirants. Hence, in our considered opinion for the limited purpose of pension (length of eligible service) Article 21 rights of the applicant takes precedence over any other distractions.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
25. If we read closely the Uma Devi judgment supra, it may be clearer how far the case of the applicant deviates from the strict constitutional scheme of public employment as enshrined in paragraph 44 of the Uma Devi judgment which reads the following:
"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
26. A careful reading of paragraph 44 of Uma Devi reveals that the Court itself recognised a category of employees whose appointments, though irregular, were capable of regularisation based on long service and sanctioned posts. The applicant's case substantially satisfies these parameters:
* he possessed requisite qualifications, * he worked for more than ten years, * he occupied sanctioned vacancies, and * his continuation was not court-protected but employer-driven.
27. Thus, even within the framework of Uma Devi, the applicant falls within the zone of equitable consideration, rather than exclusion. Importantly, any initial deviation from Articles 14 and 16 stands historically exhausted. The present claim does not reopen the recruitment process nor confer retrospective advantage in service SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE hierarchy. It merely seeks recognition of labour already rendered, which has no bearing on the rights of other aspirants.
28. The argument based on undertakings and contractual acceptance of adverse terms must be tested against the constitutional doctrine of unequal bargaining power. Where the State, as a dominant employer, imposes conditions denying social security in a context of economic compulsion, such undertakings lose normative legitimacy.
Long-term ad-hoc employment, coupled with denial of pension, raises concerns under:
* Article 21 (dignity and livelihood), and * Article 23 offering unequal covenants may appear approaching (prohibition of exploitative labour conditions) and imbalance.
29. Pension, in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, is not a bounty but a right flowing from service. The doctrine of the State as a model employer imposes higher obligations of fairness, particularly where the State itself created and perpetuated the irregularity.
30. Article 42 and Directive Principles reinforce the idea that employment must be accompanied by humane conditions, which SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE include social security. A system that extracts labour for two decades but denies pension undermines the dignity of labour.
31. In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, reported in 1981 1 SCC 608, the Hon'ble Court observed the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with.
32. In service law, the right to a pension is now recognised as a facet of the right to life (Article 21). In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in1984 (Supp) SCC 410, the Court ruled that a pension is not a bounty or a grace but a property under Article 300A and expanded through later jurisprudence as a fundamental right under Article 21. If the Cameramen are denied 20 years of service credit, their pension becomes a pittance, effectively violating their right to a dignified post-retirement life.
33. The attempt to draw a distinction between Doordarshan (Government) and Prasar Bharati (statutory body) is legally untenable in the present context. Institutional transformation cannot extinguish accrued rights arising from continuous service under the same functional establishment.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
34. The factual matrix overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that:
* the applicant was qualified, * the selection process, though irregular, was structured, * the work performed was identical to regular employees, and * service was continuous and satisfactory.
Thus, denial of pensionary recognition is not supported either by fact or law.
35. The conduct of the State reflects a structural imbalance, where long-term labour is extracted without corresponding social security. This raises concerns of fairness and constitutional morality.
36. The distinction between irregular and illegal appointment becomes crucial. The applicant's entry was not clandestine but necessity-driven. Hence, the harsh consequences applicable to illegal appointments cannot be extended to this case.
37. The judgment in S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India (2025 SCC Online SC 973) directly supports the principle that nature of work, not nomenclature of appointment, determines pension eligibility.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
38. The present claim is narrowly tailored--limited to pension. It does not disturb service hierarchy, financial parity in past wages, or recruitment outcomes. Therefore, objections based on res judicata or earlier denial of regularisation are inapplicable.
39. The applicant has much superior case than that of any daily wage or work charged employees, who are often employed without eligibility, vacancy, selection process, or with public notice etc. The applicant has further filed the following case laws in his favour:
i. Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. Jamuhonlal University in W.P. No.
(c) 4523/2023, date of disposal 13.8.2025 ii. M. S. Manorama Sharma Vs. Union of India in O.A. No. 60/767/2021 - CAT Chandigarh Bench iii. Dr. Umesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. in CWP. 3841/2022 dated 19.4.2023, High Court of Himachala Pradesh iv. Union of India Vs. Late Dr. Nusrat Aamed Khan, High Court of Delhi, para 5,6 and 7.
v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladak at Srinagar Adnan Wani Vs. High Court of J & K, para 5,6,7 & 10 vi. Rudrakumar Sain Vs. Union of India SC 2000 (8) page 25 vii. Ratanlal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 478
40. Further, in the case of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2019 10 SCC 516, the Hon'ble Supreme Court SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE looked at workers who were work-charged for decades and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the services rendered by them even prior to regularisation shall be counted towards qualifying service for pension. The following is the observation:
"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment. not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one.
However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-
charged establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of c pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed.
38. All pending interlocutory applications and miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of."
This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court fully support the case of the applicant.
41. Further, in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and Others reported in 1996, 7 SCC 113, much before the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Uma Devi supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if an employee has served for nearly 20 years, the applicant shall be deemed to have become permanent, and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. The court called it grossly unjust. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed the following:
"1. Special leave granted.
SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The appellant sought premature retirement from government service after he had put in 18 1/2 years of service in two different departments under the Central Government. Although a request for premature retirement could be made only after 20 years of government service but the Union of India granted premature retirement to the appellant at a stage when he had served the Government for 18 1/2 years. The question for determination is whether the appellant is entitled to any pensionary benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant.
3. Dr Anand Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Union of India, has contended that on 7-3-1980 when the appellant was prematurely retired he had put in 18 1/2 years of quasi-permanent service. According to him, to earn pension it was necessary to have a minimum of 10 years of permanent service. It is contended that since the total service of the appellant was in quasi-permanent capacity he was not entitled to the pensionary benefit. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the Government for 18 1/2 years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after 9 he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 7-3-1980 after serving the Government for 18 1/2 years (more than 10 years of permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be finalized within six months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date of retirement. No costs."
This case also supports the case of the applicant.
42. Further, in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in 2022 SCC online SC 2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the State cannot keep an employee temporary for 30 years and then say they are not entitled to pension. They dismissed the state's arguments and called the state's stand as highly telescopic. The Court order reads the following:
"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
2. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.
3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
This case also supports the case of the applicant.
43. The proportionality test further supports the applicant's case. The State's objective--meeting urgent manpower needs--was legitimate. However, denying pension after utilising long service is disproportionate and arbitrary.
44. Pension represents deferred wages in principle. Once full labour has been extracted, denial of pension amounts to unjust enrichment by the State and against the constitutional morality expected of the Model Employer. Administrative labels cannot override substantive reality.
45. The constitutional framework under Uma Devi protects recruitment integrity. It does not authorise denial of post-retirement SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE dignity. Pension does not infringe the rights of others; it only recognises completed service.
46. Pension is not a horizontal competitive right, and no third party rights in rem are prejudiced by pension calculation. Accordingly, Articles 14 and 16 cannot be invoked defensively by the State to justify what is, in substance, denial of earned social security. The claim is purely vertical--between employee and State--and must be adjudicated on principles of fairness, dignity, and accountability.
47. In the totality of facts and law, the applicant's case stands on a firm and coherent constitutional footing. The initial appointment, though not routed through the prescribed channel (UPSC) but by fast track need-based (huge vacancy, time consuming, cumbersome selection process through UPSC) Departmental selection after due public notice of vacancy, calling application, a structured selection with roster etc.; is demonstrably irregular and not illegal, a distinction recognised and preserved in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. The service rendered thereafter was not sporadic or contingent, but continuous, against sanctioned posts, and functionally indistinguishable from that of regularly recruited employees, thereby establishing an unbroken factual foundation of legitimate engagement. SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 31 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Merely by regularising the applicant in supernumerary post, or his failure in 1995 UPSC exam cannot be a legitimate ground to suppress the fact that his appointment was essentially in view of huge vacancies and work urgency. The claim before us is not one of entry into service or alteration of service hierarchy, but of recognition of past service for pensionary purposes, a domain squarely governed by the principles laid down in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and reinforced in State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that long years of service cannot be rendered otiose for the purpose of social security. Crucially, the grant of such benefit does not trench upon the rights of any third party nor disturb the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, as it neither confers entry nor alters inter se seniority, but merely acknowledges labour already rendered. To deny pensionary recognition in such circumstances would permit the State to appropriate decades of service while disowning its corresponding obligation, a position incompatible with its role as a model employer and violative of the guarantees of fairness, dignity, and social security embedded in Article 21. The claim, therefore, is not only legally sustainable but normatively compelling, and merits acceptance. SHAINECAT SHAINEY VIJU BANGALORE 2026.04.29 Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30' 32 O.A.No.170/00437/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
48. Considering the same, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the applicant we consider that he has made out a good case for himself, and we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to count his service from the date of initial appointment in 1993 to 2013 (date of regularisation) also for the purpose of pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits in terms of the order of regularization and extend all the monetary benefits to the applicant as and when it arises.
All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINECAT
SHAINEY VIJU
BANGALORE
2026.04.29
Y VIJU 18:01:35+05'30'