Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
V Anil Kumar vs Doordarshan on 15 April, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00229/2024
Order Reserved on: 12.3.2025
Date of Order: 15.4.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. V.Anil Kumar, S/o Sri. Vasudeva Murthy,
Aged 57 years, working as Cameraman Grade-1,
Doordarshan Kendra, Bengaluru-560 006, Residing at # 174,
3rd 'B' Cross, 1™ Stage, KHB Colony,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru-560 079.
2. Doordarshan Program Professionals' Association (DDPA),
Represented by its President,
Smt. Jayashree Bawaskar,
Working as Cameraman Grade-1,
Doordarshan Kendra, Mumbai,
Residing at No.203, MIG, Omkar Society,
Sion East, Mumbai-400 022.
...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India, By Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, Dr.R.P.Road,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting
Corporation of India, Prasar Bharati House,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.04.22
11:39:42+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Director General: Doordarshan,
Doordarshan Bhavan, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Director General: Akashvani,
Akashvani Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001.
5. Concepta Fernandes,
W/o Herald Reginald Alva,
Aged about 59 years, Working as
Assistant Director (Programme).
Akashvani, Bengaluru,
Address: No.370, First Floor,
6th Main, 1st Cross, NGEF Layout,
Sadanandanagar, Bengaluru-560 038.
6. T.V.Vidyashankar,
S/o Dr.T.V.Venkatachala Sastry,
Aged about 58 years.
Working as Assistant Director (Programme),
Akashvani, Bengaluru, Address: No.49,
Ground Floor, Prakruthi Manor, 13th Cross,
Ganganagar, Bengaluru-560 043.
7. Nutan S.Kadam,
W/o Shamsundar V Kadam,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Director (Programme)
Address: No.80, 10th A Cross,
Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Hebbal,
Kempapura, Bengaluru-560 024.
8. AS Shankaranarayana,
S/o A.Srinivasa Rao,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Director (Programme),
Akashvani Bengaluru, Address: #60,
Anandavana, Akashvani Layout,
Thanisandra, Bengaluru-560 077.
9. Mousumi Chatterjee,
D/o Late Amar Nath Chatterjee,
Aged about 59 years,
Working as Deputy Director (Programme),
Vividh Bharati, Kolkata, Address:
Flat No.5C, M.K.Towers, 301,
Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700 045.
10. Tarun Kanti Rout, S/o Ratnakar Rout,
Aged about 52 years,
Working as Deputy Director (Programme),
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.04.22
11:39:42+05'30'
3
O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Vividh Bharati Odisha, Address:
7GH/D-20/1353, Sector-9. CDA, Cuttak, Odisha-753015.
11. Meenu Khare,
D/o Narendra Bahadur Khare,
Aged about 59 years,
Working as Deputy Director (Programme),
Vividh Bharati, Uttar Pradesh, Address: 201,
Mahaveer Apartments, 36. Cantt. Road,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001.
12. Lakhan Lal Bhourya,
S/o Late Durjan Singh Bhourya,
Aged about 59 years,
Working as Deputy Director (Programme),
Vividh Bharati, Uttar Pradesh,
Address: Akashvani Colony,
Quarter No. E-2, Civil Line,
Katora Talab, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh-492001. ......Respondents
(By Advocates Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for R 1, Shri.S.M.Arif for R 2to
4 and Shri.Sahil Monga for Shri.Prateek Chandramouly for R 5 to 12)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
(i) To quash the Order F. No. A-
56011/12/2016-BA(P) dated 18th March, 2024 of the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Annexure-A9.
(ii) Direct the respondents to encadre the Cameraman Grade-1 placing them in the seniority list of JTS cadre in IB(P)S with effect from 01.01.1996, the date of their up- gradation to the pay scale Rs.2200-4000/- SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (revised to Rs.8000-13500/-) and extend consequential benefits accordingly and
(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case produced herewith as Annexure-A9."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(i) to (viii) of the Original Application. The brief facts narrated by the applicants are that applicant No.1 is a Cameraman Grade-1, working in Doordarshan Kendra, Bengaluru. Applicant No.2 is an Association espousing the cause of Cameramen working in various Doordarshan Kendras all over India. As per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the post of Cameraman Grade-1 has been upgraded to the scale Rs.2200-4000/- (revised to Rs.8000-13500/-) and it was decided to encadre the same in JTS level of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service. The question of the status of Cameraman Grade-1 (Group 'A') and their encadrement in IB(P)S vis-à-vis the Programme Executives (Group B) has been the subject matter under consideration of this Tribunal in several cases. The respondents had initiated steps to fill up the posts at the JTS level by promoting the Programme Executives for the vacancies from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018, disregarding the Cameraman Grade-1.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The Cameraman Grade-1 challenged the above action of the respondents in OA/170/1719/2018, which was allowed by this Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the Cameraman-Grade- 1 for encadrement in JTS before promoting the Programme Executives to JTS cadre. The order of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by their order dated 06.02.2021 in W.P. No. 15605/2019 & 15596/2019 and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 23.01.2024 in SLP No.8567- 8568 of 2021.
4. The applicants submit that having lost their case in every forum, the respondents now issued an order dated 18.03.2024 imposing unreasonable and irrational conditions to encadre the Cameraman- Grade-l in JTS level of IB(P)S frustrating the fruits of their prolonged legal battle. The impugned order is in violation of the court orders. The applicants have filed this Original Application challenging the said impugned order and seeking consequential reliefs.
5. As there are two applicants, M.A 232/2022 seeking permission to file a single application has been filed by the applicants and the same was allowed, and they were permitted to pursue the case together.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
6. M.A 346/2024 was filed for impleading certain private respondents, which was later replaced by M.A 406/2024 for impleading 8 respondents and M.A 346/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn.
7. On 19.7.2024, M.A 406/2024 was allowed as the Tribunal considered the applicants therein to be necessary parties and the applicants' counsel was directed to incorporate the names of eight applicants therein as respondent nos.5 to 12 in the cause title of the Original Application.
8. On notice, a counter-reply statement has been filed by respondent nos.2 to 4, and counter-reply statements by respondent no.1, and the same for the respondents 5-12 have been filed separately. Further, an additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 with certain documents.
9. On 7.3.2025, part of the arguments were heard. When the case came up for further hearing on 12.3.2025, Shri A.R.Holla for the applicants, Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent No.1, Shri.S.M.Arif for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Shri.Sahil Monga representing Shri.Prateek Chandramouly for Respondent Nos.5 to 12 were present and heard.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
10. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions of all the parties. From the pleadings of the contesting parties, it is evident that the following issues are under contest and to be decided by us:
Issue 1. Whether the said order dated 18.3.2024 correctly implements the direction of this Tribunal in earlier O.A No.1719/2018 and O.A 1456/2018 dated 10.1.2019 of C.A.T Bangalore Bench which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.15604/19 and 15596/19 (S-CAT) vide their order dated 6.2.2021, and in turn the said Hon'ble High Court Order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 23.1.2024 in SLP No.8567 to 8568 of 2021?
Issue 2. Whether the said orders of the Tribunal dated 10.1.2019 have to be implemented from the date of the said order of this Tribunal in O.A SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Nos.1719/2018 and 1456/2018 dated 10.1.2019 as contended by the respondents and accordingly incorporated in the impugned order dated 18.3.2024 or it should be implemented with effect from 1.1.1996 as contended by the applicants or should it be implemented from any other date?
3. If so, what orders?
11. The basic facts of the case are not denied or contested that the applicant no.1 is working as a Cameraman Grade I in Doordarshan Kendra, Bengaluru. Applicant No.2 is an Association of Officials (Doordarshan Program Professionals' Association) espousing the cause of Cameraman Grade I and Grade 2 working in Doordarshan Kendras all over India. Of these, 134 Cameraman Grade 1 and others working in various Doordarshan Kendras including those in Bengaluru, who are the members of Doordarshan Program Professionals Association met on 23.4.2024 through Video Conference and authorized its President Smt.Jayashree Bhawaskar to represent them before this Tribunal in challenging the Order dated 18.3.2024 issued by the respondent no.1, imposing several conditions SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE to encadre the Cameraman Grade 1 in cadre of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules of 1990. As per the applicants the background for the encadrement of Cameraman Grade-1 in JTS cadre of IB(P)S relates to the steps taken by the respondents to promote the Program Executives/Farm Radio Officer/Extension Officers with 3 years of regular service to the cadre of JTS of IB(P)S (Indian Broadcasting Programme Service) vide circular dated 24.08.2018, disregarding the claim of the Cameraman Grade-1 for encadrement in JTS cadre of IB(P)S. A copy of the said circular is produced in the O.A as Annexure-A2.
12. The aggrieved Cameraman Grade-1 approached this Tribunal in O.A No.170/1719/2018 questioning the steps taken by the respondents to promote the Program Executives who were in Group 'B' cadre without considering the case of Cameraman Grade-1, who were in Group 'A' cadre. This Tribunal allowed OA/170/1719/2018 by an order dated 10.01.2019 directing the respondents to take appropriate action to earmark certain vacancies in the JTS cadre of IB(P)S rules to encadre the Cameraman Grade-1 in the JTS cadre and give them an opportunity as has been given to the Programme Executives who were one level below them. Further, the respondents were directed to proceed with the process initiated as per the circular SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE dated 24.08.2018 only after implementation of the order of this Tribunal. However, the respondents challenged the above order of this Tribunal in W.P. No. 15504 of 2019 & W.P. No.15596 of 2019 before the High Court of Karnataka. Taking advantage of the interim order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, the respondents proceeded with the promotion of Programme Executives and promoted 487 Programme Executives to JTS cadre of IB(P)S in terms of an order dated 10.04.2019. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-A4.
13. Thereafter, the High Court of Karnataka, by an order dated 06.02.2021 dismissed W.P. No.15604 of 2019 & W.P. No.15596 of 2019, thereby confirming the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA/170/1719/2018. In view of the above developments, the applicant No.2 association approached this Tribunal in OA/170/00465/2019, seeking reversion of the Programme Executives who were promoted to JTS cadre of IB(P)S in violation of the order of this Tribunal dated 10.01.2019 in OA/170/1719/2018 read with the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 15604 of 2019 & W.P No.15596 of 2019. This Tribunal, allowed OA/170/00465/2019 by an order dated 26.02.2021 directing the official respondents to revisit the order dated 10.04.2019 and issue SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE fresh orders while keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P No.15604/2019 on 06.02.2021.
14. In the meantime, the respondents challenged the order passed by the Karnataka High Court dated 06.02.2021 in W.P. No. 15604 of 2019 & W.P. No. 15596 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8567-8568 of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by an order dated 23.01.2024 dismissed the SLP No.8567-8568 of 2021 & connected matters, thereby confirming the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The official respondents were further directed to implement the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka within 8 weeks. However, the applicants further contended that respondent No.1, without taking any steps to implement the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to comply with the order of the Karnataka High Court within 8 weeks, has now issued an order dated 18.02.2024 advising the respondent No.2 to go ahead with the proceedings of promotions from JTS cadre to STS grade (L-11) of IB(P)S. On the other hand, the Programme Executives, who were promoted to JTS cadre in violation of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal and High Court of Karnataka are now being considered for promotion to STS grade disregarding the seniority of Cameraman Grade-1. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
15. The applicants challenged the aforesaid order of respondent No.1 before this Tribunal in OA/170/00142/2024 and this Tribunal, by an interim order dated 27.02.2024 stayed the operation of the above order and posted the case to 05.04.2024. The proceedings of the said O.A. are pending. In the meantime, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 imposing several conditions to encadre the Cameraman Grade-1 in IB(P)S misinterpreting the orders passed by this Tribunal and which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. Let us examine various orders which have been referred in the O.A.
17. In SLP No.8567-8568 of 2021 vide their order dated 23.1.2024 the Court ruled the following:-
" After hearing learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court."
The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
The direction as issued in the impugned order be now complied with within eight weeks from today.
Pending interlocutory application(s), including intervention/impleadment applications, are disposed of. "
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. Clearly, the Special Leave Petitions filed by the respondent department were disposed off and directions were issued to comply with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal which were confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, within eight weeks from the date of the said order dated 23.1.2024.
19. In the said Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka order dated 6.2.2021 in Writ Petition No.15604/19 and 15596/19 which were under challenge in this SLP, the Hon'ble High Court, considering in detail the rival contentions and quoting the impugned Tribunal's order therein in O.A No.1719/2018 dated 10.1.2019 observed and ruled the following:
"9. This Court has carefully gone through the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners Union of India as well as learned counsel for the respondents and has also gone through the judgment delivered by the Tribunal.
10. The basic question involved in the present case is, whether respondents-1 and 2 are entitled to be considered for promotion as per the Recruitment Rules, 1992, having requisite experience to the JTS to IB(P)S. The relevant Recruitment Rules are on record as 'Annexure-D'. Schedule V of the Recruitment Rules reads as under:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE SCHEDULE V Method of recruitment filed of promotion and minimum qualifying service in the next lower grade for appointment of officers on promotion to duty posts in the programme production cadre of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) service Sl.No. Grade Method of Field of selection and minimum Recruitment qualifying service (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 Senior Administrative By promotion Officers with 8 years regular service Grade Deputy Director by selection in the Administrative selection General (Production) Junior Administrative Grade Rs.5900-6700 (including non-functional selection Grade) or with 17 years' regular service in Group 'A' post out of which at least 4 years' regular should be in junior Administrative grade.
2 Junior Administrative By appointment Officers in the Junior administrative Grade (Selection on the basis of Grade (Director) who have entered Grade) Director seniority based the 14th year of group A service on (Production) Rs.4500- on suitability the 1st July of the year with 5700 taking into reference to the year of examination account the or initial recruitment to junior time overall scale group A. performance Note: The Junior Administrative experience and Grade Offices. who entered into the other related service other than by direct matters. recruitment to junior time scale grade shall also be considered provided they are senior to the junior most officer who has become eligible for consideration to Junior' Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) 3 Junior Administrative By promotion Officers in the senior time scale with Grade Chief Producer by selection five years of regular service in the Rs.3700-5000 grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen 4 Senior Time Scale By promotion Officers in Junior time scale with Executive Producer on seniority cum five years regular service in the Rs.3000-4500 fitness basis grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen 5 Junior Time Scale 50% by The following categories of staff Programme Officer promotion and with three years regular service in Rs.2200-75-2800-EB- 50% by direct the grade will be eligible 100-4000 recruitment in 1. Producer Selection Grade accordance with 2. Producer sub rule 2 of rule 3. Producer Grade II
7 4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer Like-wise cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman) SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
11. The aforesaid Schedule does have a provision for promotion of Cameraman (Grade-I) with two years of service for promotion to the post of JTS Programme Officer. However, the vacancies are to be earmarked for the same purpose. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Union of India has initiated the process of promotion to the post of JTS of IB(P)S against the vacancies from the year 2000-2001 to 2017-2018 ignoring the claim of Cameraman (Grade I) for encadrement in IB(P)S. Under the Service Rules for promotion to the post of JTS Programme Officer, the Cameraman Grade (I) with two years of service is treated as one of the feeder categories and IB(P)S Rules 1990 are still in vogue.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners-Union of India does not have choice except to earmark the vacancies to promote Cameraman (Grade I) to the JTS as provided under the Rules governing the field. The respondents-1 and 2 and other Cameraman (Grade I) who fall under Schedule V of IB(P)S Rules in S.No.5 under Column No.4 are certainly entitled to be considered for promotion to 3TS Programme Officer who are having two years service against the earmarked vacancies.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents- 1 and 2 has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. E.Krishna Rao & Ors.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE etc., reported in All India Services Law Journal 2019(1) page 25 and his contention is that once respondents-1 and 2 have been treated as Government servants they are entitled for the benefit of government employees and there cannot be any discrimination.
14. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment relied upon by the respondents. It is a case relating to TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the respondents therein were declared as Government servants, it would be unfair and inequitable to deny them all the benefits, including pay scales and other conditions of service applicable to posts in the equivalent pay scale.
15. In the present case also, the petitioners have been treated as government servants and they are governed by the recruitment rules. It is nobody's case that they are not governed by the IB(P)S Rules, 1990. Therefore, the question of denying them the benefit of the statutory provisions as contained under the Rules, 1990 does not arise.
16. Resultantly, as the respondents-1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit flowing out of statutory Recruitment Rules and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has simply directed the Union of India to take appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE vacancies in the JTS of IB(P)S Rules and to consider the case of eligible cameraman (Grade-I) for promotion.
Resultantly, the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs."
*Emphasis supplied
20. Clearly from the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it was clear that the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal in O.A 1719 of 2018 dated 10.1.2019 and ruled that as respondent nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the benefit flowing out of the statutory Recruitment Rules and hence the Hon'ble High Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal had simply directed the Union of India to take appropriate action to earmark certain vacancies in the JTS of IB(P)S Rules and to consider the case of eligible Cameraman (Grade I) for promotion. Resultantly, the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.
21. In the O.A No.170/1719/2019 vide its order dated 10.1.2019 the Tribunal after hearing the parties and going through the records ruled the following:
9. We have gone through the main contentions of the applicant and reply of the respondents in detail.
The main relief sought by the applicants is for ascertaining the vacancies in the cadre of Junior Time Scale(JTS) of IB(P)S and the vacancies to be earmarked for Cameraman Grade-I as per the recruitment rules of 1990 so as to consider them SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE for the JTS level posts and to restrain the respondents from promoting the Programme Executives to fill up the posts of JTS of IB(P)S without including the Cameraman Grade-I. The issue has been comprehensively dealt with by the Principal Bench of CAT in OA.No.1895/2016 vide order dtd.25.09.2018. The details of the issue at stake are succinctly reproduced in the order of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT which we reproduce below:
*Emphasis supplied "The applicants held the post of Cameraman Grade-I in Doordarshan. They approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1176/2013 with a prayer to direct the respondents to implement the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 in true spirit, in respect of the post of Cameraman Grade-I, to re-designate the post of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and to include them in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service. Their contention was that the post of Cameraman Grade-I carried the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000, which is the same, as that of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer of the Programme Production Cadre of the IB (P) Service and there was no justification for not merging the post of Cameraman Grade-I, into that cadre. Their further plea was that under the service rules for promotion to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer, the Cameraman Grade-I with two years of service is treated as one of the feeder categories but, there was no opportunity for them on account of not earmarking vacancies for their cadre.
2. The O.A was disposed of on 08.07.2015 with a direction to reconsider the entire issue and to earmark the vacancies of Programme Officers (Cameraman) for the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service, and to consider the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE cases of the applicants with others; and to extend the consequential benefits.
3. The respondents passed a detailed speaking order dated 30.11.2015 refusing to accede to the request of the applicants. A Contempt Petition was filed and it was closed leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the said speaking order.
Hence this O.A.
4. The applicants contend that once there is a specific direction to earmark posts of Programme Officer (Cameraman) for Cameraman Grade-I, there was absolutely no basis for refusing to accede to the request of the applicants through the speaking order.
5. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit and other supporting documents. According to them, Cameraman Grade-I happens to be a feeder category for the post of Video Executive and question of its being treated as part of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service does not arise. It is also stated that over a period, several developments have taken place on account of which, the necessity to earmark posts of Programme Officers in favour of Cameraman Grade-I ceases to exist. Other contentions of the applicants are also dealt with.
6. Heard Mr. S. S. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G. S. Virk, learned counsel for respondents.
7. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A reads as under :-
"10. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to re-consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid provisions of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE the Recruitment Rules and to first of all earmark the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer under the IB(P) S. If the applicants are found eligible, they shall be given the consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
*Emphasis supplied
8. In compliance to this, a speaking order dated 30.11.2015 was passed. It runs into several pages. Para 16 thereof indicates the conclusion arrived at by the respondents, and reads as under :-
"Now, therefore in compliance of the order dated 08.07.2015 of Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the instant case, the matter has been reconsidered in consultation with Prasar Bharti and the fact that ScheduleVII of IBPS Rules providing that the posts of Video Executive will maintain their separate entity and will be filled up from the respective feeder grade (i.e Cameraman Grade-I) until they are merged at the stage of 3700-5000 (i.e JAG level IBPS) is being followed in letter and spirit and taking into consideration the other facts mentioned above, it has been decided that earmarking of the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with 2 years regular service is not feasible. It has also been decided that the request of the applicants for redesignating the posts of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and encadrement of applicants into IBPS cannot be acceded to."
9. To understand the entire scenario, it is necessary to refer to certain basic facts. The Indian SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Broadcasting (P) Service is a separate cadre by itself and it comprises of as many as five Grades in all, which are as under :-
Sl.No. Grade All India Radio Dordarshan Scale of pay 1 Senior Administrative 10 11 Rs.5900-200-
Grade Deputy Director 6700
General (Management)
2 Junior Administrative - - Rs.4500-150-
Grade (Selection 5700
Grade) Senior Director
3 Junior Administrative 44 15 Rs.3500-125-
Grade 4700-150-5000
Director/Controller
4 Senior Time Scale 130 32 Rs.3000-100-
Deputy/Deputy 3500-125-4500
Controller
5 Junior Time Scale 144 37 Rs.2200-75-
Programme Officer 2800-EB-100-
4000
Total 328 95
10. There is a separate cadre known as the Doordarshan Programme (Technical - Camera) Group 'A' and Group 'B', under the Recruitment Rules, 1987. The post of Video Executive is at the top and the feeder category for that is Cameraman Grade-I. The other posts such as Cameraman Grade-I occur down below.
11. In the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules also, a provision is made for promotion of Cameraman Grade-I to a post which is equivalent to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. This is evident from para 5 of Schedule V of these rules, which reads:-
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 5 Junior Time Scale 50% by The following categories of staff Programme Officer promotion and with three years regular service in Rs.2200-75-2800-EB- 50% by direct the grade will be eligible 100-4000 recruitment in 1. Producer Selection Grade accordance with 2. Producer sub rule 2 of rule 3. Producer Grade II 7 4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer Like-wise cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman) 12 From this, it becomes clear that the Cameraman Grade-I is made as Feeder Category for the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer on the one hand and Video Executive on the other, which occur two different services. The applicants made substantial efforts to get themselves equated to the post of Programme Officer with the pay scale of 2200-4000/-, did not fructify on account of the fact that method of selection and other attributes of the two posts are totally different. Similar prayer made in O.A. No.1248/2001 was declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.2003.
WP (C) No. 19717/2004 preferred against the Tribunal's aforementioned order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 28.03.2008.
13. The only question, therefore, which remains to be decided, is as to whether the applicants were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman). as per Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. The speaking order proceeded on the lines, which are inappropriate, SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE obviously because the prayer of the applicants as totally different from the one that was canvassed before this Tribunal. They - want straightaway to be equated to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. Once it is not feasible, the respondents are justified in declining to accede to the request: of the applicants. The respondents made & specific mention to the orders referred to above and passed a speaking order.
14. However, the aspect of the enforcement of para 5 of the Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules was not addressed. In case the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) has not been created, the reasons as to why the provision of promotion to the post still visits, need to be mentioned. On the other hand, if the post has become redundant, even that needs to be mentioned.
15. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A and direct the respondents to deal with the only aspect namely the entitlement of the applicants to be considered for the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) in the light of para 5 of the Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
10. With regard to the exercise now undertaken by Prasar Bharati as atAnnexure-A9, for promotion to the post of JTS of IB(P)S against the vacancies from 2000-2021 to 2017- SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 2018, the respondent organisation intends only to consider Programme Executives with 3 years of regular service and the applicants in this GA are not considered for this exercise. As already noted, the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench has directed the respondents to deal with the entitlement of the applicants namely Cameramen Grade-I to be considered for the post of Programme - Officer (Cameraman) in the light of para-5 of Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. The said Rules do have a provision for earmarking of vacancies specifically for Programme Officer (Cameraman). It is to be noted that the IJTS Programme Officer vacancies to be filled up as per Annexure-AS h& the same pay scale which the Cameraman Grade-I have already been given.
Therefore while considering the promotional aspects of Programme Executives who are in Group-B and in a pay scale one level below that of Cameraman Grade-I, it defies logic as to why the respondents cannot earmark certain posts for the Cameraman Grade- I as already provided in IB(P)S Rules 1990 which admittedly are still in existence. After all the litigations, the respondents would now claim in their reply in para11 that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is in the process of carrying out amendments in IB(P)S Rules1990 by removing the clauses of the recruitment rules that have become redundant (including those related to Cameraman). The main plea of the respondents has all along been that the Cameraman Grade-I did SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE not have any right for automatic encadrement of IB(P)S Rules since they are already a feeder category to the posts of Video Executives and along with Senior Time Scale employees on the Programme side, they will also be merged with the same at the level of Junior Administrative Grade of IB(P)S. This does not mean that the applicants are not eligible for the vacancies of JTS Programme Officers based on the number of vacancies earmarked for them as already provided in the service rules. In fact, contrary to the respondents' claim, the said rules in note-(iii) of Schedule-VII specifically state that the number of posts of Cameraman to be included in the Junior Time Scale of Programme Productions Cadres of Doordarshan will be decided separately. Therefore, the claim of the respondents in para-5 of their reply that since Cameraman Grade-I have the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 (at the time of notification of IBPS Rules), IBPS Rules do not intend to make Cameraman Grade-I as the feeder cadre for Junior Time Scale Programme Officer posts cannot be accepted since the request of the applicants is for earmarking certain posts in the JTS Programme Officer level for Cameraman Grade-I and nowhere has any request been made for considering them as feeder categories since they already are in that pay scale level. All along, the Cameraman Grade- I have been considered to be one of the categories of the staff eligible to be entered into the IB(P)S and any amendment in the rules which the respondents are contemplating can SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE have only prospective effect and not retrospective effect as has been held in a number of cases.
11. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the order of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT in OA.No.1895/2016 (supra) and take appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain vacancies in the JTS of IB(P) S rules, encadre them in the JTS and give them an opportunity &s has been given to the Programme Executives who are one level below them. We do understand that the respondents' organisation has every right to take a policy decision in this regard but their arguments for denying the case of the applicants are not sustainable as the relief sought for by the applicants is clearly provided in the rules which are currently applicable. The OA is therefore, allowed. The respondents are also directed to proceed with the process - initiated as per Annexure-A11 only after implementation of the above orders. No costs. "
22. A simple reading of this shows that orders were passed based on the rules in the IB(P)S Rules,1990 which had a provision made for Cameraman Grade I to be encadred to a post which is equivalent to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer as it is evident from row 5 of Schedule V of rules which reads as follows:-
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. Junior Time Scale 50% by The following Programme Officer promotion and categories of staff with Rs.2200-75-2800- 50% by direct three years regular EB-100-4000 recruitment in service in the grade accordance will be eligible.
with sub rule 2 1. Producer of rule 7 (Selection Grade)
2. Producer
3. Producer Grade II
4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer Like-wise Cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically ear-
marked for
Programme Officer
(Cameraman)
23. Clearly, the present contention the first issue framed above which needs to be decided by us is whether the impugned order in the present Original Application i.e. the speaking order of the respondents dated 18.3.2024 correctly interprets the above rule as given in paragraph 5 of Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 as contended by the respondents. Whereas the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicants contend that the respondents are misinterpreting the rules to deny the applicant's their legitimate dues flowing out of the above rules. The contention of the applicants is that in the rule nowhere it is mentioned that for junior time scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) Grade I a separate sub cadre have to be made as the respondents have in essence carved out. Whereas the respondents assert that as the rules says that "likewise Cameraman Grade I in the scale of Rs.2375- 3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically ear-marked for Programme Officer (Cameraman)", hence these vacancies for Programme Officer (Cameraman) have to be separately ear-marked and kept as a separate cadre as process of recruitment and eligibility criteria and work content for Cameraman is very different than that of other Programme Officers. .
24. The contention of the applicants is that if they are segregated as a sub-cadre distinct from other Junior Time Scale Programme Officers, there will be no promotional avenue and upward mobility possible for them. The applicants vehemently assert that the IB(P)S Rules 1990 which was gazetted on 5.11.1990 and which came into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette specifically provides for the encadrement of the Cameraman on equal footing as SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 29 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE any other feeder cadre as listed in the row 5 of Schedule V of the Rule 1990, which entails their right to upward mobility as provided in the said Schedule.
25. The applicants further assert that the IB(P)S Rules, Schedule V comprises of as many as five grades in all and hence Junior Time Scale Programme Officer is at the bottom of the pyramid which is feeder cadre to Senior Time Scale Deputy/Deputy Controller which in turn is a feeder cadre to the Junior Administrative Grade Director/Controller, and which is a feeder cadre to the Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) Senior Director, and which in turn is the feeder cadre to Senior Administrative Grade Deputy Director General (Management), and the Programme Officer (Cameraman) will have equal promotional opportunity to all the ascending hierarchical grades. Contra the official respondents and private respondents vehemently argued that the recruitment process, eligibility criteria for initial recruitment and work contents of other cadres mentioned in row 5 of Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 are very different and distinct when compared to that of the Cameraman Gr.I hence the applicants cannot equate themselves with any of the other cadres mentioned in the rule as the feeder cadre to the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 30 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE post of JTS Programme Officers, hence the claim of the applicants is unreasonable and not supported by the rules.
26. We have carefully gone through the IBPS Rule 1990, particularly row 5 of Schedule V which mentioned that, "the following categories of staff with three years regular service in the grade will be eligible to be designated as Junior Time Scale JTS Programme Officer:
1. Producer (Selection Grade)
2. Producer
3. Producer Grade II
4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer It further mentions, "like-wise Cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically ear-marked for Programme Officer (Cameraman)".
27. The above provision regarding Cameraman seen from any angle cannot be interpreted that it provides for a closed cadre for Cameraman to be encadred to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 31 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (Cameraman) by merely interpreting them as entitled of being members of IB(P)S at the level of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer (Cameraman). Simple reading of the above rule would clearly show us that the Cameraman Gr.I are as integral to junior time scale programme officer as other categories of staff which are mentioned therein like Producer (Selection Grade), Producer, Producer Grade II, Translator, Editor, Editor (Scripts), Reference Officer on equal footing and entitlements. And hence in our considered opinion the Programme Officer (Cameraman) will have proportionate lien on all the subsequent higher level promotional cadres (as mentioned in Schedule V) to which junior time scale programme officer are feeder cadre i.e., Senior Time Scale Deputy/Deputy Controller, Junior Administrative Grade Director/Controller, Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) Senior Director, Senior Administrative Grade Deputy Director General (Management). These facts and interpretation are as obvious and clear as the sun rising in the east, or as obvious as ordinarily the crow being black in colour, and can be understood by even a lay person. Any contrary interpretation will lead us to conclude that such interpretations (or mis-interpretations) are motivated, intentional, unjust, discriminatory, illegal and perverse, and needed to be set aside.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 32 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
28. In our considered opinion the intention of this 1990 IB(P)S sub- legislation cannot be said to be to lead the Cameraman Grade I into a blind, closed and moribund cadre merely to be designated as a junior time scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) who have no any further opportunity for upward mobility. In that sense in our considered opinion, the impugned order is a case of clear misinterpretation of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V by the respondent department to make out a separate closed cadre of junior time scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) and ask the applicants to give a choice, either to remain in their existing cadres or to come and join into this closed junior time scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) cadre.
29. Clearly from the reading of rule, it is very clear that the Cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specially ear- marked for Programme Officer (Cameraman) as envisaged in the said rule of 1990, and they also having proportionate right to all the hierarchical promotional post as mentioned in the Schedule V as per their respective eligibility, where Cameraman Gr.I is a feeder cadre to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer, and which in turn successively is a feeder cadre of Junior Administrative Grade/Chief Producer to Junior Administrative Grade (Selection Grade)/Director SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 33 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (Production) to Senior Administrative Grade/Deputy Director Production) as mentioned in Schedule 5 in following fashion:-
SCHEDULE V Method of recruitment filed of promotion and minimum qualifying service in the next lower grade for appointment of officers on promotion to duty posts in the programme production cadre of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) service Sl.No. Grade Method of Field of selection and minimum Recruitment qualifying service (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 Senior Administrative By promotion Officers with 8 years regular service Grade Deputy Director by selection in the Administrative selection General (Production) Junior Administrative Grade Rs.5900-6700 (including non-functional selection Grade) or with 17 years' regular service in Group 'A' post out of which at least 4 years' regular should be in junior Administrative grade.
2 Junior Administrative By appointment Officers in the Junior administrative Grade (Selection on the basis of Grade (Director) who have entered Grade) Director seniority based the 14th year of group A service on (Production) Rs.4500- on suitability the 1st July of the year with 5700 taking into reference to the year of examination account the or initial recruitment to junior time overall scale group A. performance Note: The Junior Administrative experience and Grade Offices. who entered into the other related service other than by direct matters. recruitment to junior time scale grade shall also be considered provided they are senior to the junior most officer who has become eligible for consideration to Junior' Administrative Grade (Selection Grade) 3 Junior Administrative By promotion Officers in the senior time scale with Grade Chief Producer by selection five years of regular service in the Rs.3700-5000 grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen 4 Senior Time Scale By promotion Officers in Junior time scale with Executive Producer on seniority cum five years regular service in the Rs.3000-4500 fitness basis grade in the medium in which the vacancy has arisen 5 Junior Time Scale 50% by The following categories of staff Programme Officer promotion and with three years regular service in Rs.2200-75-2800-EB- 50% by direct the grade will be eligible 100-4000 recruitment in 1. Producer Selection Grade accordance with 2. Producer sub rule 2 of rule 3. Producer Grade II 7 4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 34 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Like-wise cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman)
30. From the above rule position, it shall be clear that no distinction can be made within the fold of JTS Programme Officer between any of the listed feeder cadres in column 4 of 5th row of the Table as highlighted above. Earmarking vacancies specifically for Programme Officer(Cameraman), merely is a further beneficial sub legislation in favour of Cameraman Gr.I for whom vacancies has to be clearly, distinctly and separately earmarked. But certainly it does not mean a separate sub-cadre for them or to restrict their sub-cadre of JTS Programme Officer (Cameraman) merely at that first level of encadrement only, without further providing them benefit of upward mobility to the posts listed in 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th row of the Schedule V. It may be a completely erroneous understanding and gross mis- interpretation of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, if we interpret that the rule intended to make a blind, closed, disabling and moribund cadre of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer (Cameraman) for the applicants without any possibility of any further upward mobility for them, which is otherwise provided for the other JTS Programme Officers cadres.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 35 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
31. We are fully conscious of the Tribunal's earlier observation in O.A No.170/1719/2018 that we do understand that the respondents' organisation has every right to take a policy decision in this regard but their arguments for denying the case of the applicants are not sustainable as the relief sought for by the applicants is clearly provided in the rules which are currently applicable.
32. The respondent department had all discretion to frame or not to frame the said rules named Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990, which came into effect from 5.11.1990, the date of its gazetting. The respondents had inherent power to rescind/revoke the rules or alter or modify them if they found that there was something wrong in the rule, but once the rule has been framed, and the same has come in to effect, and the said rule is continued for so long in such cases the rule has to be implemented in the same way as it is in the written text and as it is envisaged in the text of the rule in letter and spirit, as the said rules are already therein statute since 1990. There is no scope for anyone to misinterpret any rule, and any expedient misinterpretation will only be considered colourable, malicious, unconstitutional, illegal, perverse and untenable.
33. In our considered opinion, at this late juncture, the respondent department have no other option but to implement the IB(P)S Rule SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 36 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 1990, Schedule V in its true spirit. Once the rule has come the way it is, there is no room for arguments or contention that those cadres which are listed in Schedule V in row 5, i.e., Junior Time Scale Programme Officer the first set of following categories of staff with three years of regular service in the grade who were eligible, i.e., Producer (Selection Grade), Producer, Producer Grade II, Translator, Editor, Editor (Scripts), Reference Officer, and like-wise the second set of staff termed as Cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375- 3500 with two years of regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically ear-marked for Programme Officer (Cameraman), are two different cadres with two different fates and they should be meted out two different treatment under the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, as they both were earlier having different recruitment process and eligibility conditions at the time of recruitment, hence, they cannot be equated. And so one set of Programme Officers will have opportunity for upward mobility within the frame work of the Schedule V of the Rule, but the other sub-cadre of Programme Officer (Cameraman) will not have opportunity of upward mobility, although provided specifically and equally in the Schedule V of the rules. This type of artificial differentiation between the members of feeder cadres SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 37 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE at the JTS level will amount to an arbitrary and colourable exercise of authority.
34. Clearly, in row 5 of Schedule V, all the feeder cadres have been mentioned on equal footing, and put together as feeder cadres to JTS. Furthermore for the Cameraman Grade I have been provided special status by emphatically been providing with vacancies specially ear- marked for them as Programme Officer (Cameraman) and their eligibility criteria being only two years when compared to others for whom it is three years of regular service in their present grades. In our considered opinion the only harmonious interpretation of Schedule V and its contents would be that on all the hierarchical promotional grades of the Junior Time Scale Programme Officer in Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rule 1990, everyone within that fold who is mentioned as feeder cadre for selection as 'generic' Programme Officer, including specific Programme Officer (Cameraman) will have equal rights and proportionate lien to the promotion to higher ascending cadres.
35. We are of the considered opinion that in the impugned order there is gross mis-interpretation of the existing rules and the orders of the Tribunal in O.A No.1719/2018 dated 10.1.2019, and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos.15604/2019 & 15596/2019 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 38 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Court in SLP No.8567 to 8568 of 2021 dated 6.2.2021 by merely providing Cameraman Grade I limited accommodation in the Programme Officer (Cameraman) Grade and making their cadre blind, closed, moribund, unattractive and dysfunctional one by discriminating against them by not providing them with the proportionate pro-rata ear-marking in the ascending hierarchy. In our considered opinion, the interpretation of schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, in the impugned order looks perverse and vindictive and punitive, as if the department is hostile to the cadre of Programme Officer (Cameraman) as they have come to various judicial forums to exercise their fundamental right to judicial remedies to protect their livelihood and to get the justice in terms of the implementation of the service rules framed which were very much encompassing their own cadre within the fold of Indian Broadcasting (P) Service rules 1990 which was gazetted on 5.11.1990, particularly in terms of the provisions of Schedule V therein.
36. It is pertinent to note that in the lead case of the Tribunal in O.A 170/1719/2018 dated 10.1.2019, it mentions of that the respondents are directed to consider the order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No.1895/2016 supra and take appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain vacancies in the JTS of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 39 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE IB(P)S rules and ensure to give them an opportunity as has been given to the Programme Executives who are one level below them.
37. Clearly, the order dated 10.1.2019 in O.A No.170/1719/2018 was not the first order of its kind. In the preceding order in O.A 1895/2016 the same issues were before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal vide their order dated 25.9.2018 had ruled the following:
The applicants held the post of Cameraman Grade-I in Doordarshan. They approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1176/2013 with a prayer to direct the respondents to implement the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 in true spirit, in respect of the post of Cameraman Grade-I, to re-designate the post of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and to include them in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service. Their contention was that the post of Cameraman Grade-I carried the pay scale of Rs.2200- 4000, which is the same, as that of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer of the Programme Production Cadre of the IB (P) Service and there was no justification for not merging the post of Cameraman Grade-I, into that cadre. Their further plea was that under the service rules for promotion to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer, the Cameraman Grade-I with two years of service is treated as one of the feeder categories but, there was no opportunity for them on account of not earmarking vacancies for their cadre.
2. The O.A was disposed of on 08.07.2015 with a direction to reconsider the entire issue SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 40 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE and to earmark the vacancies of Programme Officers (Cameraman) for the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service, and to consider the cases of the applicants with others; and to extend the consequential benefits.
3. The respondents passed a detailed speaking order dated 30.11.2015 refusing to accede to the request of the applicants. A Contempt Petition was filed and it was closed leaving it open to the applicants to challenge the said speaking order. Hence this O.A.
4. The applicants contend that once there is a specific direction to earmark posts of Programme Officer (Cameraman) for Cameraman Grade-I, there was absolutely no basis for refusing to accede to the request of the applicants through the speaking order.
5. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit and other supporting documents.
According to them Cameraman Grade-I happens to be a feeder category for the post of Video Executive and question of its being treated as part of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service does not arise. It is also stated that over a period, several developments have taken place on account of which, the necessity to earmark posts of Programme Officers in favour of Cameraman Grade-I ceases to exist. Other contentions of the applicants are also dealt with.
6. Heard Mr. S. S. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G. S. Virk, learned counsel for respondents.
7. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A reads as under :-
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 41 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "10. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents-Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to re-consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules and to first of all earmark the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer under the IB(P) S. If the applicants are found eligible, they shall be given the consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
*Emphasis supplied
8. In compliance to this, a speaking order dated 30.11.2015 was passed. It runs into several pages. Para 5 thereof indicates the conclusion arrived at by the respondents, and reads as under :-
"Now, therefore in compliance of the order dated 08.07.2015 of Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the instant case, the matter has been reconsidered in consultation with Prasar Bharti and the fact that Schedule- VII of IBPS Rules providing that the posts of Video Executive will maintain their separate entity and will be filled up from the respective feeder grade (i.e Cameraman Grade-I) until they are merged at the stage of 3700-5000 (i.e JAG level IBPS) is being followed in letter and spirit and taking into consideration the other facts mentioned above, it has been decided that earmarking of the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with 2 years regular service is not feasible. It has also SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 42 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE been decided that the request of the applicants for re-designating the posts of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and encadrement of applicants into IBPS cannot be acceded to."
9. To understand the entire scenario, it is necessary to refer to certain basic facts. The Indian Broadcasting (P) Service is a separate cadre by itself and it comprises of as many as five Grades in all, which are as under :-
Sl.No. Grade All India Radio Doordarshan Scale of pay 1 Senior Administrative 10 11 Rs.5900-200-
Grade Deputy Director 6700
General (Management)
2 Junior Administrative - - Rs.4500-150-
Grade (Selection 5700
Grade) Senior Director
3 Junior Administrative 44 15 Rs.3500-125-
Grade 4700-150-5000
Director/Controller
4 Senior Time Scale 130 32 Rs.3000-100-
Deputy/Deputy 3500-125-4500
Controller
5 Junior Time Scale 144 37 Rs.2200-75-
Programme Officer 2800-EB-100-
4000
Total 328 95
10. There is a separate cadre known as the Doordarshan Programme (Technical -
Camera) Group 'A' and Group 'B', under the Recruitment Rules, 1987. The post of Video Executive is at the top and the feeder category for that is Cameraman Grade-I. The other posts such as Cameraman Grade-I occur down below.
11. In the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules also, a provision is made for promotion of Cameraman Grade-I to a post which is equivalent to Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. This is evident from SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 43 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE para 5 of Schedule V of these rules, which reads:
5. Junior Time Scale 50% by The following categories Programme Officer promotion and of staff with three years Rs.2200-75-2800- 50% by direct regular service in the EB-100-4000 recruitment in grade will be eligible.
accordance with 1. Producer sub rule 2 of rule (Selection Grade) 7 2. Producer
3. Producer Grade II
4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer Like-wise Cameraman Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically ear-marked for Programme Officer (Cameraman)
12. From this, it becomes clear that the Cameraman Grade-I is made as Feeder Category for the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer on the one hand and Video Executive on the other, which occur two different services. The applicants made substantial efforts to get themselves equated to the post of Programme Officer with the pay scale of 2200-4000/-, did not fructify on account of the fact that method of selection and other attributes of the two posts are totally different. Similar prayer made in O.A. No. 1248/2001 was declined by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.06.2003. WP (C) No. 19717/2004 preferred against the Tribunal's SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 44 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE aforementioned order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 28.03.2008.
13. The only question, therefore, which remains to be decided, is as to whether the applicants were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman), as per Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. The speaking order proceeded on the lines, which are inappropriate, obviously because the prayer of the applicants was totally different from the one that was canvassed before this Tribunal. They want straightaway to be equated to the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer. Once it is not feasible, the respondents are justified in declining to accede to the request of the applicants. The respondents made a specific mention to the orders referred to above and passed a speaking order.
14. However, the aspect of the enforcement of para 5 of the Schedule V of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules was not addressed. In case the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) has not been created, the reasons as to why the provision of promotion to the post still exists, need to be mentioned. On the other hand, if the post has become redundant, even that needs to be mentioned.
15. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A and direct the respondents to deal with the only aspect namely the entitlement of the applicants to be considered for the post of Programme Officer (Cameraman) in the light of para 5 of the Schedule V of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules. This exercise shall be completed within a SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 45 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
38. A simple reading of the above clearly shows that even the order dated 25.9.2018 in the O.A 1895/2016 was not the first order of its kind and in an earlier round of litigation in O.A 1176/2013, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal had gone into the same issues and decided the case in favour of the applicants vide its order dated 8.7.2015. The said order mentions the following:
"MA 898/2013
This MA has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1985 seeking permission to join together in a single Original Application. For the reasons stated therein the same is allowed.
OA 1176/2013 The applicants herein who are Cameramen Grade-I working with the respondents have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:--
"i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to implement the IB (P) Service Rule in true spirit for the post of Cameraman Grade-I. To allow the O.A. with costs.
ii) Re-designate the post of Cameraman Grade-I as Programme Officer and include them in IB(P)S as per the said Service Rule.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 46 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants."
2. According to Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 ('IB(P)S' for short) for the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2375 -3500 revised to Rs. 2200-75-2800-EB- 100-4000, the method of recruitment to the said post is 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The field of selection and minimum qualifying service for promotion to the said grade are as under:--
"The following categories of staff with three years regular service in the grade will be eligible.
1. Producer (Selection Grade)
2. Producer
3. Producer Grade II
4. Translator
5. Editor
6. Editor (Scripts)
7. Reference Officer.
Likewise Cameraman grade in the pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500 with two years regular service will be eligible against the vacancies specifically earmarked for programme officer (Cameraman)."
3. The Fifth Central Pay Commission has also recommended to place the Cameraman Grade-I(Rs. 2375-2500 in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and to them in IB (P)S. The Government considered the aforesaid recommendation and accepted the same to the extent that they have granted the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000. However, since the post of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 47 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Cameraman Grade I was a feeder cadre post for the post of Video Executive, which is in the grade of senior time scale, the Prasar Bharti did not agree with the said recommendation. Aggrieved by the said decision, some of the Cameraman Grade-I have earlier filed OA 1248/2001 (Doordarshan Cameraman Welfare Association v. Union of India) approached this Tribunal seeking encadrement of Cameraman Grade-I in the IB(P)S, Group 'A' with all consequential benefits. This Tribunal, after due consideration of their claim, rejected it Order dated 27.6.2003 observing that merely besides Rule 3(3) ibid makes it abundantly clear that IB(P)S shall comprise four independent cadres of Group 'A' posts, i.e., Programme Management Cadre of All India Radio, Programme Management Cadre of Broadcasting, Programme Production Cadre of All India Radio ad Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan Cameraman-I does not belong to any of the above categories. The operative portion of the said Order reads as under:--
"14. We observe that the applicants have contested the decision of the respondents and have averred that the Ministry of I&B should themselves have decided the issue of encadrement instead of leaving it to Prasar Bharti, as according to them, the staff of All India Radio and Doordarshan continued to be Govt. employees as shown in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Union of India v. Tripta Devi (CWP No. 10856/2001) pronounced on 26.7.2001. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 48 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "In our opinion, the scheme of Section 11 clearly postulates issuance of written order of the transfer by the Central Government containing the date with effect from which an office/employee of the Central Government may stand transferred to the services of the Corporation. In other words, an employee of the Central government cannot be an employee of the Corporation unless the Central Govt. passes an order transferring his/her services to the Corporation and the concerned employee is given an option of not becoming an employee of the Corporation. The petitioners have neither pleaded nor any evidence has been produced before this Court to show that the Central Government had passed order under Section 11 of the Act transferring respondent No. 1 to the services of the Corporation. Further, in reply to the Court query, Shri Sajay, Goyal candidly conceded that no such order has been passed so far.
In view of the above, we have a hesitation to hold that respondent No 1 cannot be treated as an employee appointed in the services of the Corporation by transfer and her service conditions cannot be controlled or regularized by its authorities. As a logical corollary to this conclusion, we hold that the transfer or respondent no 1 from Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar to Maintenance Centre, Dharamshala was without, jurisdiction on and the Tribunal did not commit any illegality of invalidating the same. The view which we have taken funds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kundan Sugar Mills v. Ziyaddin, AIR 1960 S.C. 650: P.K.P. Bidi Factory v. O.L. Thenge, AIR 1970 SC. 823: State of Mysore State v. H. Papanna Gowde, (1970) 3 SCC SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 49 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 545 : AIR 1971 S.C. 191: Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. A Krishna Rao, 1973 (1) S.L.R. 1080 and Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. A. Jwalkar, AIR 1989 S.C. 1157 (Emphasis added).
" 15. Applicants have also relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M. Balu v. UOI (OA No. 810/1996), given on 5.6.2002 whereunder the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of staff placed with the Prasar Bharati was expressed as continuing. After examining in detail the provision of Section 11 of the Prasar Bharti Act, dealing with the transfer of service of existing employees to the Corporation (Prasar Bharati), the Tribunal held as below:--
From the above provisions it is clear that the officers of the then Akashvani or Doordarshan could be transferred to the Corporation only after seeking their intention of becoming an employee of the Corporation, ad after exercising such option when an officer or employee is transferred by an order of the Central Government, such employee or officer shall, on and from the date of transfer cease to be an employee of the Central Government and becomes an employee of the Corporation. It is stated on both sides that such an option has not been sought from the applicants. If that is so, the applicants continue to be the employees of the Central Government since they are not yet absorbed in the Corporation by seeking necessary option in terms of Section 11. Thus, the applicants being the Central Government employees can maintain this application and the corporation is expected to defend the litigation pending on the appointed day. In SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 50 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE view of Section 16(d) of the P.B. Act. In view of these statutory provisions in the P.B. Act, we have no hesitation to hold that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this application". (emphasis added)
16. In the above scenario, it would appear that the applicant's services not having been fully transferred to Prasar Bharti the Ministry could still exercise its functions over them in respect of personnel matters. In fact the Ministry of I & B had exercised the same while giving effect to Pay Commission Recommendations as far as it related to the pay scales, which was a function administrative and financial in nature.
Ministry of I & B had, however, transferred to the Prasar Bharti Corporation, the aspect of encadrement of Cameramen, which was more concerned with the professionalization of the broadcasting services, which has rightly fallen in the domain of the Corporation. The same was a correct decision to take. In our considered view, it is for Prasar Bharati to determine as to how best to utilize its professionals for achieving its aims of generation and distribution of broadcasting services. They are the best judges in that field. Neither Administration nor the Tribunal can stray into the turfs of profession, of which they are totally ill-equipped. Judicial review can treat on this field only when total violations of the guidelines and/or malafide are alleged. This Tribunal had already taken a view in the matter, while dealing with the earlier litigation. OA No. 1096/99, filed by applicant no. 1 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.2.2000, with the following observations:--
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 51 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "3. Our attention has been invited to the respondent O.M. dated 20.11.97, whereby on the basis of 5th Pay Commission report, a proposal has been sent to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for encadrement of Grade I in the IB(PS and revision of their pay scale.
4. Respondents are directed to issue appropriate orders on the basis of the aforesaid proposals, as expeditiously as possible and preferable within three months from date of receipts of a copy of this order.
OA stands disposed of accordingly."
C.P. No. 302/2000 was thereafter filed by the applicant alleging non-implementation of the Tribunals above order. While considering the C.P. the Tribunal observed on 8.1.2001 with regard to the aspect of encadrement of Cameraman as below:
"4. As regards (ii) above, the Ministry have advised the Doordarshan Authorities vide Note dated 20.9.2000 (Annexure R II) that the inclusion of the post of Cameraman Gr. I in IB (P) cadre may be kept by Prasar Bharti in view while framing regulation for the programming serviced of Prasar Bharti.
5. On behalf of applicant, it has been contended that the 5th Pay Commission recommendation came into effect from 1.1.96, much before the Prasar Bharati came into existence, and hence respondents by not implementing those directions have committed contempt of Court.
6. We are unable to agree with the contentions. After the formation of Prasar Bharati pursuant to the Prasar Bharati Act, SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 52 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 1990, it is for Prasar Bharati to take appropriate action for framing/amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the various posts as per Section 9 of the Act Hence, after the issue of respondents' Note dated 20.9.2000, it cannot be said that there is any ground to proceed with the CP in regard to (ii) above.
17. The Tribunal had thus upheld the Prasar Bharati's competence to deal with the above issue and upheld the action of the I & B Ministry, devolving such power on the Corporation. The above decision was also upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by dismissing the CWP filed by the applicants. Competence of the Prasar Bharati to deal with service matters has thus been established. Further, CWP No. 1937/01 filed by the applicants has been permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to a remedy in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. This order of the Hon'ble High Court nowhere indicates that its earlier decision has been modified. In the above backdrop, we are convinced that Prasar Bharati could have correctly considered the encadrement of otherwise of Cameramen and the Prasar Bharti Board had not acted beyond its jurisdiction while taking the decision, communicated by the impugned order dated 31.1.2001.
18. The second ground raised on behalf of the respondents is that there is considerable difference between the functions of the Broadcasting Service and Programme Management Service on the one hand and the service of the Cameraman on the other. According to them, the functional behaviour of the cameramen is technical in nature and thus different from Programme Service. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 53 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Guiding part of the work of the programme is to conceptualise, visualize and produce Programme while the job of the Cameramen is to provide only the technical assistance in the production of the programme Besides, functionally it was not a sound proposition to club a technical cadre with the programme cadre which is an altogether different and specialized field. There cannot be any quarrel with the above decision. Prasar Bharati, as observed above, are the best judge to decide as to how to utilize the services of the staff to further its professional needs. Without, in any manner, denigrating the role of the Cameraman in the production of programmes, it has to be recorded that the same at best is an ancillary function towards the programme service and it cannot be equated with the production of programmes per se. Tribunal is not an expert body to examine the merits of this aspect and to record a finding that both the services should be merged in a common service. It is pertinent to note that even the Pay Commission had recorded its recommendation for the encadrement of the cameraman in IB(P)S, only as they had been advised that a proposal to that effect was under examination with Ministry of I & B earlier. The Commission had not recorded any finding on the merits or otherwise of the said issue. Therefore, it will not be proper for the Tribunal to find fault with the professional decision taken by the Prasar Bharati Corporation. The applicants' plea that the non-encadrement of the Cameraman Grade-I in IB(P)S would erode their chances of career advancement does not stand the scrutiny of law as the issue concerning their scale of pay has already been taken care of while their promotional avenues in the grade of Video Executive, in SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 54 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE their own hierarchy has been protected. In fact the Prasar Bharti had correctly indicated in their
(ii) all officers appointed on regular basis to the post of Video Executive in Doordarshan in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500.
It cannot be the case of the applicants that their case would be covered by the above, merely because they have also been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- (or its replacement scale) Besides Rule 3(3) ibid makes it abundantly clear that IB(P)S shall comprise four independent cadres of Group 'A' posts, i.e., Programme Management Cadre of All India Radio, Programme Management Cadre of Broadcasting, Programme Production Cadre of All India Radio ad Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan Cameraman-I does not belong to any of the above categories. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim that they have to right to automatic encadrement. 21. In the above view of the matter we are convinced that the applicants have made out a case on merits which calls for our interference. OA falls and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs."
4. Thereafter, the applicants therein had challenged the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19717/2004 and the High Court dismissed the same vide Order dated 28.3.2008 and agreed with the findings of this Tribunal. The operative portion of the said Order of the High Court reads as under:--
"7. We have heard counsels for both parties and perused the documents available on SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 55 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE record along with written submissions. The primary issue before us is whether Prasar Bharti is entitled to take a decision on the issue of encadrement of Cameramen Grade I who are working in its establishment, but continue to be employees of Central Government. Before adverting to the grounds raised in the present petition, we may notice that a similar issue has already been decided by Supreme Court in Prasar Bharti v. Amarjeet Singh Civil Appeal No. 3244/2002 where the question before the Supreme Court was whether the orders of transfer passed by the corporation was in the interest of administration and with a view to carry on its functions and was therefore, in no way arbitrary or irrational.
8. It may be noticed that there is no doubt that the services of the petitioners have been placed at the disposal of Prasar Bharti. The petitioners who are on deputation in Prasar Bharti have been working for a long time under the control and supervision of Prasar Bharti. It is for Prasar Bharti to determine as to how the concerned professionals be utilized for maximum efficiency and effectiveness to achieve its aims. Respondents had stressed before the tribunal, the autonomous and independent nature of Prasar Bharti which has been duly authorized to administer its staff without any interference from any outside agency. The staff attached to Doordarshan is presently under deemed deputation to Prasar Bharti for all matters of administration. We are, therefore of the view that competency of Prasar Bharti cannot be questioned in deciding the said issue. It may also be noted that pay commission had not recorded any finding on the merits or otherwise and had only recommended the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 56 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE issue of encadrement and the final decision was to be taken by the concerned competent authority.
9. We are unable to accept petitioners contention that non encadrement of Cameramen Grade I would erode their chances of career advancement. It may be noted that the pay scale of the petitioners has already been increased and further the promotional avenues to the post of video executive in their hierarchy has also been protected. Orders with regard to upgrading pay scales from Rs. 2375-3500 (Group B) to Rs. 8000-13,500 (Group A) with effect from 1st January 1996 had already been issued on 14.9.2000. Proposed rules of Prasar Bharti clearly envisage that cameramen should be given promotion in the next higher grade i.e. allowing progression in their vertical hierarchy without disturbing the character of programme cadre. Further in future, the post of Video Executive, which are presently part of programme service, as and when fall vacant will form part of the vertical hierarchy for the Cameraman stream.
10. We further note that the nature of functions performed by Cameramen is different from those of Programme Services. Work of cameramen is technical in nature and that of programme service is to conceptualize, visualize and produce programme. Work of cameraman is ancillary to the programme service and cannot be equated with the same.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Petition being devoid of merit does not warrant our interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed."
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 57 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that after the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal as well as that of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra), the respondents- Ministry of Information and Broadcasting amended the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 vide notification dated 9.1.2012. According to the amended provisions of the said Rules, all officers and employees recruited for the purposes of Akashvani Or Doordarshan before the appointed day and in service in the Corporation as on the 1st day of April, 2000, shall be on deemed deputation to the Corporation with effect from the 1st day of April, 2000, and shall so continue till their retirement. Further in the amended Act, it has been stated that "11B. (1) All posts in the erstwhile Akashvani and Doordarshan other than the posts borne on the strength of the cadres referred to in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Corporation with effect from the 1st day of April, 2000."
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after the aforesaid amendment of the Act, the respondents have encadred the Supervisors (ESD) into regular Programme Cadre (Group 'A') of AIR and subsequently into IB(P)S vide their note dated 17.7.2008 which is reproduced as under:--
"MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
BROADCASTING
(BA-P SECTION)
Sub: Encadrement of Supervisors(ESD) into regular Programme Cadre (Group 'A') of AIR and subsequently into IB(P)S. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 58 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Reference DG:AIR's ID No. C-18011/2002- S.I(A)(Pt.I) dated 31.10.2007 on the above subject seeking certain clarifications on the issue of implementation of this Ministry's I.D. note of even number dated 11.9.2007. The observations made by DG:AIR have been considered in the Ministry and in order to avoid further litigation on the issue, the proposal of creation of supernumerary posts personal to these four Supervisors(RL) at different levels of IB(P)S is under consideration. DG:AIR is requested to intimate the number of posts required to be created to accommodate these four supervisors against supernumerary posts personal to them so that the issue could be resolved. Sd/-
(S.P. Sharma) Under Secretary (BAP) Tele: 23073316 Shri Raj Kamal, DDG(A), DG: All India Radio Akashwani Bhavan, N. Delhi, Ministry of I&B, I.D. No. 45011/57/2005-BA(P) dated 17.7.2008."
7. In the aforesaid changed circumstances, the applicants have made another representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Information and Broadcasting on 16.9.2009 to take necessary steps to encadre the post of Cameraman Grade I in the cadre of junior time scale of IB(P)S w.e.f. 1.1.1996. As no action was taken on the said representation, they have sent a legal notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 15.5.2010 reiterating the aforesaid request. Again when the respondents have not taken any action in the matter, the present Original Application has been filed.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 59 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. The respondents in the reply stated that the matter has attained finality with the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and, therefore, the applicant could not have agitated this matter again.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 contained a specific provision that "Cameraman Grade in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500 (later on given the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000) with two years of regular service will be eligible against vacancies specifically earmarked for Programme Officer (Cameraman)" which is part of the feeder cadre of junior time scale Programme Officers. However, the fact of the matter is that the respondents-Ministry has not made any such earmarking. We also observe that even after the aforesaid order of this Tribunal as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra), the respondents-Ministry themselves encadred the Supervisors(ESD) into regular Programme Cadre (Group 'A') of AIR and subsequently into IB(P)S. Since the post of Cameraman Grade-I has been held to be eligible against the vacancies earmarked for Programme Officer (Cameraman), the respondent-Ministry alone has the power to earmark certain posts of Cameraman Grade I as Programme Officer (Cameraman).
10. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents-Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to re-consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules and to first of all earmark the vacancies of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 60 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer under the IB(P)S. If the applicants are found eligible, they shall be given the consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs."
*Emphasis supplied
39. A simple reading of this catena of preceding orders on the same issue demonstrates the persistent, recalcitrant and noncompliant attitude of the respondents regarding the implementation of the existing provisions of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 vis-à-vis the Cameraman Grade I. Hence, the stubborn misinterpretation of existing provision of Schedule V of Rule 5 and other related provisions in the IB(P)S rule 1990 as far as it relates to the Cameraman Grade I who had to be encadred in the Junior Time Scale as Programme Officer (Cameraman) and who had been patiently trying to get resolved their issue for a quite long time before various judicial forums, and who actually got five succeeding orders in their favour, but alas it has not yet been implemented in letter and spirit.
40. The O.A 1176/2013 was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.670/2016 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed the following:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 61 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "1. The matter was called out in the morning and an appearance was made on behalf of private respondents. After some hearing, the writ petition was passed over to enable the counsel for private respondents to obtain instructions.
2. Learned counsel for the private respondents on instructions has stated that he would not press the contempt petition which is pending before the Tribunal and would file a substantive petition raising the grievance.
3. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would withdraw the present writ petition as it has become infructuous.
4. We may note that the writ petition impugns order dated 08.07.2015 passed in O.A. No. 1176 of 2013. The operative portion of which reads:
"10. We, therefore, dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to reconsider the matter in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Recruitment Rules and in first of all earmark the vacancies of Programme Officer (Cameraman) from among the Cameraman Grade-I with two years regular service for their inclusion in feeder category for post of Junior Time Scale Programme Officer under the IB(P)S. If the applicants are found eligible, they shall be given the consequential benefits. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs."
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 62 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The Tribunal had not decided any substantive issue or controversy and had asked the petitioner, i.e. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to reconsider the matter in the light of the Recruitment Rules and to en-cadre the private respondent as a junior time scale programme officer if the stand was found to be correct. Further, in case the private respondents were found eligible, they shall be given seniority benefits. Period of two months was given for compliance.
*Emphasis supplied
6. It is an admitted case that the petitioner has passed an order dated 30th May, 2015 rejecting the representation and claim of the private respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the private respondents has stated that they would challenge this order dated 30th May, 2015 before the Tribunal in accordance with law. It will be open to the private respondents to ask for an early hearing and disposal before the Tribunal as it is pointed out that the dispute has remained pending in various forums since 1999 and the cadre to which private respondents belong, is a dying cadre. The prayer for early hearing will be given due consideration by the Tribunal.
8. We clarify that the statements made by the counsel will not be treated as an admission of facts against them or in their favour.
9. With the aforesaid observations, taking the statement made by learned counsel for the parties on record, we dispose of the present writ petition. We have not expressed any opinion."
*Emphasis supplied SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 63 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
41. Clearly this shows that this issue of encadering Cameraman Gr.I into IB(P)S/JTS have remained pending since the inception of the rule of 1990, or since 1999 as observed in the Hon'ble High Court order above, before various forums and the applicants did not get justice at the hands of the respondent department. Against this order also, on challenge, no relief was given in favour of the Department by the Hon'ble High Court. From the catena of judgements and as mentioned in the Hon'ble High Court's order in Writ Petition No.670/2016 dated 4.4.2016 as following, " as the dispute remains pending in various forums and the cadre to which the private respondent belongs is a dying cadre, the prayer for early hearing will be given due consideration by the Tribunal", is very pertinent.
42. Let us now examine the contention of the respondents in the light of the various orders vis-à-vis the second contention and the issue framed above, i.e., the date of implementation of this statutory provision as provided in paragraph 5 of Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990.
43. Let us first examine the cited case in O.A Nos. 916 and 1010 of 1999 dated 8.11.2000 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench where the private party therein were TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent and the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 64 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Hon'ble High Court directed that the applicants therein shall be considered to be inducted into the IB(P)S Rules 1990 and to provide them all the benefits of service and to consider the cases of the respondents for promotion to Junior Administrative grade in accordance with their eligibility and suitability. The said order was challenged in various Writ Petitions Nos.5471, 5712 and 14673 of 2001 wherein by their order dated 20.3.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled the following:
10. The basis of judicial review is common law. When subjecting some administrative act or order to judicial review, the Court is concerned with its legality is it within the limits of the powers granted. It is fundamental mechanism for keeping public authorities within due bounds and for upholding the rule of law. For the writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be invoked when the Judicial or quasi judicial authority acts without or in excess of Jurisdiction, or in contravention of rules of natural justice or commits an error apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal having considered each and every aspect of the case came to the conclusion that simply because the applicants have accepted Annual Career Progression Scheme that does not disentitle them to give equivalent pay scale as mentioned in the pay scales in the IBPS Rules, 1990.
It is not in dispute before this Court that the pay scale of one of the applicants is Rs. 3000-4500/- and the other applicant pay scale is Rs. 2200-4000/-. The first pay scale is equivalent to the Senior Time Scale Deputy Director/Deputy Controller, which is mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rules, 1990. Similarly, the other pay scale is equivalent to the Junior Time Scale Deputy Director/Programme Officer, which is mentioned in Schedule-1 of the Rules, 1990.
11. Though the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent have not been specifically mentioned in the IBPS Rules, 1990, the pay scales of other cadres have been mentioned. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 65 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE By virtue of these Rules whether these two category posts have to be Included in certain category of posts as mentioned in IBPS Rules by virtue of necessary implication. For that purpose, meaning of the departmental candidate' as explained in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1990 along with Rule 6 and Note 3 of the Schedule-1 of the Rules, 1990, have to be looked into. The "departmental candidate" means 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.
12. A bare perusal of above definition would clearly go to show that the person who holds posts on regular basis can also be treated as "departmental candidate". It is not in dispute before this Court that by virtue of proceedings dated 31-03-1992 the applicants were declared as Government Servants with retrospective effect from 06-08-1988 and 12-08- 1988 respectively. Therefore, the applicants fit into the definition of "departmental candidate" as 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 date of commencement of these Rules, be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the Services.
13. It is not in dispute that one of the applicant's pay scale is Rs. 3000-4500 and another applicant's pay scale is Rs. 2200-4000 by the date of commencement of the Rules, 1990. So, when there is a deeming provision in the IBPS Rules, 1990, they shall be appointed to the corresponding posts and grades in the service, there is no ambiguity in the Rules so as to take a different view. When there is no ambiguity and the plain meaning of the Rule would disclose that the departmental candidates holding a particular pay scale shall be deemed to have been appointed to the corresponding posts, by virtue of necessary implication, the first applicant is deemed to have been appointed as the Senior Time Scale Deputy Director/Deputy Controller and the second applicant is deemed to have been appointed as the Junior Time Scale Deputy Director/Programme SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 66 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Officer. Note 3 of Schedule-1 of the Rules, 1990 also clarifies the same, which reads as follows:
"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 the strength shown therein.
14. It is not in dispute before this Court that the posts of T.V. News Correspondent and T.V. Assistant News Correspondent are regular sanctioned posts by the Government. So, by virtue of this Note, those posts shall be deemed to have been added in the strength shown in IBPS Rules, 1990. So, when the Note 3 and the Rule 6 coupled with Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1990 have to be read in a juxtaposition, it is clear that the posts holding by applicants shall be deemed to have been Included in the pay scale equivalent to the posts mentioned in the IBPS Rules, 1990. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in giving such a finding. It cannot be said that the Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to decide the issue. Basing on this rule position only, the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. There is no perverse finding given by the Tribunal so as to call for interference. The findings are based upon proper interpretation of Rules and also the material available on record. So, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court and hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of the fact that the applicants were already received the benefits under Annual Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, they cannot claim total benefit by virtue of allowing the O.As. The benefits, if any, received under the ACP Scheme shall have to be deducted or adjusted while considering their cases in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
44. The same was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. E.Krishna Rao and Others ((2018) 18 SCC 107) dated 26.9.2018 and the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled the following:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 67 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "11. 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.
12. 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 the expression "departmental candidates". The effect of Note 3 to Schedule I is that posts sanctioned after 1-
1-1985 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 h 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 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 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 equivalent pay scale.
13. 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;
(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 SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 68 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) individual cases for promotion would be considered against vacancies available, keeping seniority in view.
14. 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."
45. The official respondents emphatically asserted that as the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in this case that while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal they clarify that the promotions which have already been effected and the existing seniority shall not be affected and hence the respondents have canvased that in terms of this Apex Court ruling which is universally applicable to all the cadres of IB(P)S, and in the case of applicants also, they have been legally advised that the order of the Tribunal in O.A 1719/2018 dated 10.1.2019 can only be implemented from the date of the said order of the Tribunal as this order of the apex court is binding on the applicants.
46. From the very fact asserted in the speaking order dated 18.3.2024 of the respondents this above assertion may appear incongruous as it says in paragraph 6(ii) B that:
"It has further been decided that since the Hon'ble CAT order dated 10.01.2019 has attained finality 11 posts falling under promotion quota in JTS grade of Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan have been earmarked for PO(CM) w.e.f 10.01.2019 (i.e., the date of order of Hon'ble CAT Bangalore SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 69 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court."
47. Clearly as discussed earlier, the C.A.T order dated 10.1.2019 was not the first of its kind, it was preceded by earlier C.A.T orders in O.A 1895/2016 dated 25.9.2018 and O.A 1176/2013 in favour of the applicants. And as mentioned in Writ Petition No.670/2016 in paragraph 7 the litigation in some form or other about the current dispute had remained pending in various judicial forums since 1999 and that the cadre to which private respondents belong is a dying cadre. Hence clearly, the cut-off date provided as 10.1.2019 would appear to be an artificial one and the same cannot be convincing or acceptable. There is no iota of argument as to why a statutory provision should not be implemented from the date of the gazette of the said IB(P)S Rule, 1990, the date on which the said provision came into force, i.e., on 5.11.1990. There are catena of judgments which inter-alia other things emphatically mention that if something is provided in the rules or law that shall be done the way it is provided therein shall be done that way only and not in another way. In the case of Patangrao Kaddam v. Prithviraj Sajirao Yadav Deshmugh reported in AIR 2001 SC 1121, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 70 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language
48. Hence, from the facts of the case, it will emerge that the contention of the applicants that their encadrement to IB(P)S should be effective from the date of notification of the rule itself and not from the date of the C.A.T order as has been mentioned in the speaking order dated 18.3.2024 i.e, date 10.1.2019. In the Hon'ble Apex Court the matter in dispute has been finally decided and upheld. It is not that just the C.A.T order dated 10.1.2019 were upheld but other preceding orders were also upheld equally, hence the respondent's date 10.1.2019 of implementation of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 Schedule V provision is quite artificial and not convincing.
49. The contention of the respondents department that the applicants are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. E.Krishna Rao and others mentioned supra wherein the applicants in this O.A were not parties and the subject matter was not regarding ear-marking of the post of Cameraman and encadrement of Programme Officer (Cameraman) into the IB(P)S, hence, it is far-fetched to apply the observations of the said Hon'ble Apex Court decision in this case. However to SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 71 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE consider the scenario, if at all there were any promotions which have already been effected for any one in JTS grade Programme Officers and there are any existing seniority list, that needs to be protected there are possible way not to disturb the apple cart, as the respondent department has already decided to keep the earmarked post for the new cadre of Programme Officer (Cameraman) separately as a sub- cadre. They can keep them as such and create appropriate proportionate promotional opportunities for them as provided in the IB(P)S Rules 1990 Schedule V of the Recruitment Rules. And accordingly without disturbing the seniority or opportunities of others sub groups of Programme Officers JTS, appropriate earmarked post may be created as supernumerary posts for giving proportionate promotional opportunities to the applicants to various ascending levels as envisaged for JTS in Schedule V of the IB(P) S Rule, 1990. This will be one lasting, amicable and enduring solution for all the parties concerned.
50. We have gone through the averments of the private respondents 5 to 12. Their main contention is that Doordarshan Programme (Technical-Camera) Group A and B Recruitment Rules 1987 exist parallel to the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 for Cameraman and only earlier SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 72 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE rules of Doordarshan programme (Technical-Camera) Rules, 1987, Cameraman Grade I in 7 years could have become eligible for getting promotion to the post of Video Executive (Group A Post), which in turn after 5 years could have reached the scale of Junior Administrative Grade (Group A Post) in the hierarchy of IB(P)S Rules 1990. Hence, it is redundant and incongruous for Cameraman Grade I Group B posts which are now to be encadred by ear-marking certain posts in the Junior Time Scale Group A of IB(P)S 1990 need not be given any further promotional avenue as the earlier promotional avenues are open to them.
51. But this is not the right interpretation of the existing rules as in the rules, there is no discrimination against the Cameraman Grade I to be encadred into IB(P)S 1990 as Junior Time Scale Group A Programme Officer (Cameraman). Once the provision is there and there is no distinction between the Programme Officer (Cameraman) and any other Programme Officer at the JTS level in Schedule V of the 1990 Rules, all of them being Junior Time Scale occupants, will have equal and same opportunity to ascend to other hierarchical grades of Junior time Scale or Senior Time Scale grade etc. as provided. Hence we are of the considered opinion that this line of the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 73 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE argument of private respondents have no force. We do not find any other contention taken by the private respondents as valid and convincing.
52. Inter-alia other contentions taken by the respondent nos.2 to 4 telling that Applicant no.2 called Doordarshan Program Professionals' Association (DDPA) is not recognised by the answering respondents, hence it has no right to espouse the grievances and it merits dismissal are not acceptable at this stage as they have been espousing their causes even in earlier litigations also. Hence, at this stage, it is not relevant.
53. Let us examine some of the other key arguments put forth by the respondents in their submissions.
54. Inter-alia other things, respondent nos.2 to 4 in their reply statement submits that after the encadrement in IBPS, one set of officers cannot be governed by two sets of Service Rules. This averment is self-contradictory and in no way affects the rights and claims of the applicants if they are governed by the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules of 1990 as well as the Doordarshan Programme (Technical-Camera) Group A and Group B Recruitment Rules, 1987 at different point of time in their service. If SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 74 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE everyone in a feeder cadre like the members of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules of 1990, is not provided opportunity to be absorbed by the rules themselves in to the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 the feeder cadre in the earlier rule will have certain members governed by that rule and those of them who get absorbed in the new cadre as per the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 will be governed by the new rules. In no case same person will be governed simultaneously by both the rules. Certainly, the feeder cadre members remaining unabsorbed in the new cadre will be governed as earlier by the Doordarshan Programme (Technical-Camera) Group A and Group B Recruitment Rules, 1987. And this type of practice is common among feeder and promotional cadres in many departments of Government. Examples can be seen in the State Civil Services cadre wherein, those who get promoted into the IAS cadre were governed earlier than their encadrement into the IAS by the respective State Civil Services Rules and later as and when they are promoted to the All India Services like IFS, IPS, IAS, they are governed by the All India Services Rules. And both of those provisions simultaneously remain in force. Hence the rhetorical argument that after encadrement in IB(P)S, one set of officers cannot be governed by two sets of service rules has no SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 75 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE relevance to deny the rightful claims of the applicants as provided in the IB(P)S, Rules, 1990.
55. Further, respondent nos.2 to 4 emphasized that the applicants should give their options between the two cadres possibly available to them. True, the applicants should give their options, but for right and lawful interpretation of the rules and their applicability. And if the applicants are aggrieved by the misinterpretation of the rules, they have all rights to challenge the same before appropriate forums. Hence this argument has no force.
56. The respondents have emphasized that the applicants derived their rights from the Tribunal's ruling dated 10.1.2019, hence their rights flow out of the said ruling. But a simple reading of the said Tribunal's order shows that it does not create any new rights by their ruling or any new interpretation, but it only mentions and reiterates implementing the existing provisions enshrined in IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V. Hence, it should be clear that the rule governing the applicant's claim does not get created merely by the Tribunal's order in O.A No.1719/2018 dated 10.1.2019. The said order dated 10.01.2019 mentions other preceding orders of the Tribunal where the same provisions of IB(P)S Rule 1990 were reiterated to be SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 76 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE implemented. And as the rights of the applicants are flowing from the IB(P)S Rule 1990, hence there is no convincing reason as to why their claim has to be implemented from the date of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.1.2019.
57. Clearly, as asserted by the applicants, their claim flows out of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 from the date it was gazetted on 5.11.1990. The directions for implementing the said legal provision by various Benches of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, do not alter the position of the IB(P)S Rule 1990, that came into existence on 5.11.1990 the date of its gazetting.
58. Further, argument of the applicants that the promotion of Programme Executives to JTS of IB(P)S has nothing to do with the encadrement of the applicants herein. The respondents submit that the promotion of Programme Executives to JTS is materialized against the vacancies prior to 2018, of which the applicants have no claim whatsoever.
59. But this view may not be right as the applicants' claim is clearly derived from the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V wherein, in row 5, it clearly mentioned that for JTS cadres, the Cameraman having certain eligibility conditions were eligible to be encadred and, by virtue of that the Programme Officer (Cameraman) at JTS level had SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 77 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE equal right and opportunity as any other sub-cadre at the level of JTS for upward mobility in other hierarchical cadres provided in Schedule V, as has been discussed earlier. Hence, the fate of all the JTS level Officers, including the Programme Officer (Cameraman) are very much interwoven with each other and they compete for the same hierarchical vacancies for their promotion, which are envisaged in Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rule, 1990.
60. Further, respondent nos.2 to 4 assert that, in terms of the order of the Tribunal in O.A 465/2019 dated 26.2.2021, the Ministry revisited the order dated 10.4.2019, and they found no change is required in the said promotion order dated 10.4.2019 which was issued in respect of the vacancies occurred prior to 31.12.2018 and that vacancies prior to 31.12.2018, applicants have no claim. But the said view is erroneous as the applicants' rights flow from the provisions of the IB(P)S Rules 1990 and from the date of its gazette and not from the date of any particular Court order, as their rights to be in IB(P)S cadre at JTS level and consequent right to promotion at the other levels is clearly envisaged in the Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990. Various Judicial Authorities have merely reiterated the said legal provision in their various orders starting with the preceding order of this Tribunal in O.A 170/1719/2018 dated 10.01.2019, order SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 78 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos.15504 of 2019 and 15596 of 2019 dated 6.2.2021 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.8567-8568 of 2021 dated 23.1.2024. Hence, the applicants herein have very much rightful interest in all the vacancies in which they have proportionate rights, since the date of inception of IB(P)S Rules.
61. Further, the applicants were not parties in the referred case of Union of India and Ors. v. E.Krishna Rao and others and we cannot force them to fall in line with what is mentioned therein. Anyway, the respondents have made a separate sub cadre at the JTS level for the applicants, which makes it easier for them to carve out clearly defined proportionate posts for them at various promotional hierarchical levels as provided in Schedule V and give them due justice as per the provisions in the IB(P)S Rules, 1990. Barring these, other descriptive details in the counter reply of the respondent nos.2 to 4 are not relevant to the contentions raised by the applicants in this Original Application.
62. Respondent no.1 in their counter reply statement has gone into the details of how they have decided proportionately the vacancies SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 79 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE ear-marked for the applicants at the JTS level, as there is no specific contest for the same, we may take it as correct and just.
63. On a close reading of the provisions of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990 Schedule V clearly shows that within the fold of JTS the following categories of staff with three years of regular service in the grade were eligible, i.e., 1. Producer (Selection Grade), 2. Producer, 3. Producer Grade II, 4. Translator, 5. Editor, 6. Editor (Scripts) and 7. Reference Officer and Like-wise Cameraman Grade I on the pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 with two years' service will be eligible for the vacancies specifically earmarked for Programme Officer (Cameraman). Clearly, these provisions of the rule came into effect on the date of notification of the said rule in the Gazette on 5.11.1990. The Cameraman Grade I who fulfilled the eligibility criteria had an equal right to the JTS Programme Officer vacancies for encadrement like any other cadres mentioned therein. This could have operated ideally as a horizontal reservation for Cameraman Grade I in the cadre of JTS Programme Officer proportionately to the respective cadre strengths of various feeder cadres, as claimed by the applicants.
64. But even if we accept the interpretation of the official respondents that the "ear-marking of vacancies" meant the creation of a separate sub-cadre for the Programme Officer (Cameraman) at SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 80 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE the JTS level, nothing is lost for the applicants, provided if they are not discriminated for being considered for upward mobility in time with other JTS co-occupants. The said cadre may operate as a distinct sub-cadre of JTS Programme Officer. But as the rules are clear that anyone who is part of generic cadre JTS Programme Officer having 5 years regular service in the grade have eligibility for promotion on seniority cum fitness basis to the next higher level, i.e., STS Executive Producer, and similarly Officers in the senior timescale with five years of regular service in the grade are eligible for promotion on seniority to the Junior Administrative Grade/Chief Producer, and further Officers with 8 years regular service in the Administrative selection Junior Administrative Grade (including non-functional selection Grade) or with 17 years' regular service in Group 'A' post out of which at least 4 years' regular should be in junior Administrative grade will be eligible for promotion to the next higher level cadre of Senior Administrative Grade/Deputy Director General (Production) etc.
65. Hence, it is clearly a wrong view of the respondents to assert that the cadre of the Programme Officer (Cameraman) is a closed cadre at JTS Level, and they will have no further avenue for upward SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 81 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE mobility as provided to the other JTS cadre in Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990.
66. Respondent no.1 has also emphasized that the two rules exist side by side, as discussed earlier. This is a very common occurrence in the service where certain cadres feed into certain higher-level cadres, like from State Administrative service to IAS etc. Hence, the existence of two parallel provisions for the applicants neither gives them any unique position nor benefit by which we can assail them or discredit their contentions.
67. The respondent no.1 have tabulated the operation of IB(P)S Rules, 1990 and Cameraman Recruitment Rules, 1987 and other rules in the following manner:
IB(P)S Rules, 1990 Cameraman Recruitment Rules, 1987 Cameraman Grade-II PEX 5 years 3 Years Cameraman Grade-I 2 years JTS Programme Officer 4 years Programme Officer JTS 7 years (Cameraman)* 4 years Video Executive STS 5 years 5 years JAG 8 years (or 17 years of Group A Service including 4 years in JAG) SAG SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 82 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
68. This table clearly shows that for Cameraman Grade I with the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V, a new avenue is created with two years' experience they can get encadred into the IB(P)S Rules as Programme Officer (Cameraman) at the level of JTS Programme Officer. From there, they can serve 4 years to reach STS, further with five years to JAG and further after 8 years of experience to SAG. Whereas in the earlier rules, they had the opportunity to ascend to the level of Video Executive from Cameraman Grade I with 7 years' experience and from Video Executive to JAG level directly after 5 years of experience.
69. Respondent no.1 further emphasized that now two opportunities are there for the Cameraman. Hence, they should give an option.
70. Yes, the applicants should give an option, but only once they are satisfied that their cadre restructuring is strictly as per IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V with the envisaged promotional avenues as provided in the rules. The outline provided by the respondents further shows the hollowness of the argument that other cadres who are joining at the JTS level, particularly the Programme Executives, were recruited with different recruitment processes and eligibility criteria etc., hence, there is no comparability between the Programme SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 83 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Executives cadre and the Cameraman and, based on which, the respondents argued that they should be treated differently. But this table further emphasizes that department in principle equates at some higher levels Cameraman with other Programme Executives as there was already in the earlier rule an avenue for merger of two cadres through Video Executive at JAG level, and functionally they were merging at that level. This further will strengthen the interpretation in the new IB(P)S Rules, 1990 when Cameraman Grade I were to be incorporated as Programme Officer (Cameraman) which should have been at JTS level as horizontal ear-marking for the Cameraman Grade I at the level of JTS Programme Officer in the same cadre as roster point for them and not by creating a separate and distinct sub-cadre independent of other Programme Officers.
71. However if the department in its wisdom and discretion considers it more expedient to go for a separate independent sub-cadre of Programme Officer (Cameraman) at the level of JTS, nothing is lost for the applicants if they are given proportionate avenue for upward mobility as provided in IB(P)S Rule 1990, Schedule V, proportionate to their respective cadre strength and should have equally provided them the opportunity for upward mobility at the level of STS, JAG and SAG as it is clearly envisaged in the IB(P)S Rules, 1990. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 84 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
72. Further respondent no.1 argued that Hon'ble CAT order on 10.1.2019 directed the Ministry to encadre the Cameraman 1 at JTS of IB(P)S as Programme Officer (Cameraman). But clearly by implication they want to say that the rights of the applicants was created by the C.A.T order dated 10.1.1990 in O.A 1719 of 2018. However, if we examine the said orders, it only reiterates the provisions of IBPS Rule 1990 and asked the department to implement the same. Clearly, the rights were created by the IBPS Rules, 1990 and not from the date of the judgment dated 10.1.2019 and not by the said C.A.T order. Further reading of the C.A.T order shows that the said order is not the first of its kind, and it was preceded by two other orders in O.A Nos. 1895/2016 and 1176 of 2013. Hence, it may be incorrect to say that the right of the applicants were created on 10.1.2019 i.e., on the date of the C.A.T order, and that they should reap the benefits of the IB(P)S Rules 1990 from the date of the Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 10.01.2019. Whereas it is a matter of fact that the right to encadrement and consequent promotion was created on the date of coming into effect of IB(P)S Rules, 1990 itself.
73. Further, respondent no.1 have taken another contention that prior to the said court order dated 10.1.2019 in O.A 1719/2018, there SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 85 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE were several court orders in favour of the Ministry. But clearly, those orders have no relevance as far as the present case is concerned and, as the said C.A.T order is further confirmed at the level of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. All these orders derived their basis from the IB(P)S rules of 1990, which are still in force. Hence, there cannot be ambiguity that the rights of the applicants accrued on the date of gazette notification of the said rules and from that day they were eligible to be empanelled at the JTS level as Programme Officer (Cameraman), and they had equal lien and right for upward mobility within the various cadres based on their individual experience and eligibility as prescribed in the Schedule V of the IBPS Rules, 1990.
74. Further, respondent no.1 has claimed that Programme Officer (PO) and Programme Officer (Cameraman) are two separate posts at the JTS grade of Programme Production Cadre of Doordarshan in IB(P)S as has been defined by C.A.T Principal Bench order in O.A No.1895/2016 dated 25.9.2018 as per paragraphs 12 and 13 and further wherein there is an earlier mentioned order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28.3.2008 in Writ Petition No.19717/2004 filed against order dated 27.6.2003 issued by C.A.T Delhi in O.A No.1248/2001 which is against the applicants, and the same have never been challenged further in any court of law. But those SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 86 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE parallel proceedings have no relevance as far as the present applicants are concerned who have won in O.A 1719/2018, which was further confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's in Writ Petition Nos.15504 of 2019 & 15596 of 2019 dated 6.2.2021 and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indias' order in SLP Nos.8567to 8568 of 2021 dated 23.1.2024. Hence, all those citations are not relevant for the present case and they do not alter the rights of the applicants emanating from the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V.
75. It may be wrong to argue at this stage that, because their functionality is different, the Programme Officer (Cameraman) at JTS level should be treated differently than other Programme Officers or to take the view that Programme Officer (Cameraman) cadre should be restricted to only at the level of JTS as Programme Officer (Cameraman) as mentioned in the 5th row of Schedule V. In our considered opinion there is no distinction made out in the IB(P)S Rule, 1990, Schedule V between any of the sub-categories of Programme Officers for upward mobility. All are eligible to be Programme Officers, whether as one cadre or as separate sub-cadres, as the department has made out. In our considered opinion a Programme Officer (Cameraman) will have the equal right to upward mobility, as provided in Schedule V of IB(P)S Rules, 1990. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 87 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
76. The judgment cited in Union of India and others v. E.Krishna Rao and Another where the applicants were not parties will not curtail their rights as provided in the rules. Hence none of the arguments of the official respondents in any way controvert the claims of the applicants.
77. The private respondents 5 to 12 have also filed their reply statement. They argue that the applicants seek to disrupt the promotional hierarchy in the entire IBPS by seeking encadrement of the Cameraman Grade 1 and placing them in the seniority list of JTS cadre in the IB(P)S w.e.f 1.1.1996 contrary to the provisions of the IBPS Rules and this Tribunals order dated 10.1.2019 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But clearly as discussed earlier, the rules as we can see provide for the encadrement of Cameraman at the JTS level in the IBPS Rules, 1990 with effect from the date of Gazette notification of the said rule, and they have equal right within various hierarchical cadres provided in Schedule V of the said Rule. No distinction is made between anyone who occupies a post at JTS level for further upward mobility based on their eligibility as envisaged in the IB(P)S Rule 1990. Hence, this argument does not hold water. SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 88 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
78. Further the private respondents argued that Cameraman Grade I could not be treated at par with other Programme Executives and for them already existed in the Doordarshan Programme (Technical Cameraman) Group A, Group B Recruitment Rules, 1987 certain promotional opportunity and possible merger in the IB(P)S cadre at a higher level, hence there was no need for any additional promotional avenues being created under IB(P)S to the Group A post of JTS and above. But it is a matter of fact that such second avenue for upward mobility is provided under the IB(P)S rules, 1990 for Cameraman's cadre and it cannot be denied to them.
79. The private respondents have further filed promotional hierarchy pattern in the three recruitment rules which are tabulated below:
All India Radio (Group 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1962 Doordarshan Programme (Technical-Camera) Group A Group B Recruitment Rules, 1987 Transmission Executive (Group B post) Camera Man Grade III (Group B post) 1600-2660) (1400-2600) 5 yrs 3 yrs Cameraman Grade II (Group B post) Programme Executive (Group B post) (2000-3200) 5 yrs (2000-3200) Cameraman Grade I (Group B post) 3 yrs (2375-3500) 7 yrs Video Executive (Group A post) (3000-4500) Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 5 yrs Junior Time Scale (Group A post) (Merger of Doordarshan Techncal-Camera service into the IBPS) (2200-4000) 4 yrs Senior Time Scale (Group A post) (3000-4500) 5 yrs Junior Administrative Grade (Group A post) (3700-5000) 8 yrs (or 17 years of Group A service including 4 yrs. In JAG) Senior Administrative Grade (Group A Post) (5900-6700) SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 89 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
80. Critical examination of the above table clearly shows that the rules provide for Cameraman Grade I who were governed by Doordarshan Programme (Technical - Camera) Group 'A' and Group 'B', under the Recruitment Rules, 1987 in the new IB(P)S Rules could be inducted at the level of JTS as Programme Officer (Cameraman) as per IB(P)S Rules, 1990. Although they had other alternative provided in the rules for getting promotion to the post of the Video Executive Group A Post and then in turn to Junior Administrative Grade Group A post in the IB(P)S hierarchy. But as discussed earlier, the two avenues for such merger in the same cadre is very much provided in the rules which is not revoked, hence both option exists for the applicants. Hence, this argument cannot controvert or curtail the rights which are provided to the applicants in the IB(P)S Rules, 1990.
81. Further, the private respondents have quoted certain parts of the order dated 10.1.2019 of the Tribunal in O.A No.170/1719/2018 while relying upon row 5 in column 4 of Schedule V of the IB(P)S rules, 1990 and held as following:
10. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the order of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT in OA.No.1895/2016 (supra) and take SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 90 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE appropriate action for the purpose of earmarking certain vacancies in the JTS of IB(P) S rules, encadre them in the JTS and give them an opportunity &s has been given to the Programme Executives who are one level below them. We do understand that the respondents' organisation has every right to take a policy decision in this regard but their arguments for denying the case of the applicants are not sustainable as the relief sought for by the applicants is clearly provided in the rules which are currently applicable. The OA is therefore, allowed. The respondents are also directed to proceed with the process - initiated as per Annexure-A11 only after implementation of the above orders. No costs. "
82. The private respondents have underlined something which they think is important, but they should underline where it is mentioned that the, "relief sought for by the applicants is clearly provided in the rules which are currently applicable". That part of the order is the most important part of the order and the said order was not based on any new interpretation or discovery of new rights, or creation of new rights, but simple reiteration of the provisions of IB(P)S Rule Schedule V to be implemented. The said order further corroborated that the right to the applicants had already accrued, and it existed in the IB(P)S rules, 1990 which were currently applicable and which are still in force. Hence, the argument of the private respondents is not convincing.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 91 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
83. Further, the private respondents submit the same lines of argument as other official respondents and argue that the respondents are governed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. E.Krishna Rao and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 107. But it is pertinent that the applicants were not parties therein. As discussed earlier that the said ruling may not curtail the rights of the applicants flowing out of IB(P)S Rules, 1990 Schedule V as discussed.
84. None of the other contentions taken are relevant to the claims of the parties. Hence, we are convinced that none of the respondents have been able to make any convincing grounds to discredit the contentions of the applicants.
85. None of the other contentions put forth by respondent nos.2 to 4 in our considered view are convincing and acceptable to controvert the case of the applicants.
86. Even in the reply statement of respondent no.1, we do not find any other valid contention worth mentioning.
87. Hence, from the above discussion, it is evident that this case is basically interpreting the existing rules of IB(P)S 1990 Schedule V as discussed above, and we have no doubt that the applicants have made SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 92 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE out a strong case. We have no doubt that the impugned order dated 18.3.2024 is based on gross misinterpretation of the statutory provision and the same is in gross contempt of the orders of the earlier Tribunal in O.A 1719/2018, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's Order in Writ Petition Nos.15504 of 2019 & 15596 of 2019 dated 6.2.2021 and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's order in SLP Nos.8567to 8568 of 2021 dated 23.1.2024. Hence, we pass the following orders:
(A) The Original application is allowed. The speaking order F.No.A-56011/12/2016-BA(P) (Annexure A-9) dated 18.3.2024 is set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the IB(P)S Rule, Schedule V by earmarking vacancies for the applicants as Programme Officer (Cameraman) at the level of Junior Time Scale for them by appropriate proportionate (proportionate to the respective feeder cadres strengths) ear-marking.
(B) Such proportionate earmarking of posts shall be done for the JTS Programme Officer (Cameraman) at all the other hierarchical levels as mentioned in Schedule V of the IB(P)S Rules, 1990, with effect from the date of the notification of said Rule dated 5.11.1990 (or from any subsequent date on which the respective applicants attained eligibility or from the date on which anyone else similarly placed in any other sub-cadre of JTS have been encadred at the JTS SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 93 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE level), if need be by creating supernumerary posts temporarily, to avoid any conflict with the interests of other sub-cadres at the level of JTS and above as envisaged in Schedule V. (C) The applicants are entitled to equal and equitable treatment in aspect of promotion from the JTS grade of sub-cadre of Programme Officer (Cameraman) to other four hierarchical levels in Schedule V from the date anyone else who are similarly situated as JTS Programme Officer level has been promoted with all consequential benefits including seniority and pay with arrears to be paid with 6% simple interest, as clearly the respondents have persistently deprived the applicants of their legitimate dues by misinterpreting the rule and ignoring the Court orders and various rulings.
(D) As mentioned by the Hon'ble High Court that the Cameraman being a dying cadre, and as this is a very long-standing litigation shockingly and appallingly misinterpreting the rules and disabling the applicants from enjoying their rights flowing out of IB(P)S Rules, 1990, Schedule V, an early action is required. Persistent gross misinterpretation of rules appears to be arbitrary, discriminatory and malicious. Although such acts ordinarily attracted cost, but expecting early redressal we refrain from imposing cost.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.04.22 11:39:42+05'30' 94 O.A.Nos.170/229/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE (E) This order shall be implemented expeditiously, and in no case later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After two months any dues shall carry an interest of 12% thereafter.
All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.04.22
11:39:42+05'30'