Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
A K Sutar vs Doordarshan on 26 September, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017
Reserved on 25.09.2025 Pronounced on 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Ajay Kumar Sutar, aged about 51 years, S/O-
Late Basant Kumar Sutar, At Pundhilo, P.O-
Lankapora, P.S- Patkura, Dist- Kendrapara,
presently working as Casual Labourer, O/O-
Asst. Director (Engineering), Prasar Bharati,
High Power Transmitter, Doordarshan,
Tulsipur, Cuttack. 753008.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Director General Doordarshan, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Doordashan Bhavan, Copernicus Marg, Mandi
House, New Delhi. 110001
2. Deputy Director (Admn.) O/O- Director
General Doordarshan, Doordashan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi.
110001
3. Additional Director General (P), Akashvani
Bhawan, Eden Garden, Kolkata, 700001
4. Deputy Director (Engineering), Prasar
Bharati, High Power Transmitter,
Doordarshan, Tulsipur, Cuttack. 753008.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.09.26 16:05:38
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA praying for direction to the respondents to regularize him w.e.f. 01.03.2000 with grant of all consequential benefits inter alia stating that on 01.05.1997, he was engaged on causal basis to manage the day to day work of Peon at Prasar Bharati High Power Transmitter Doordarshan, Tulasipur, Cuttack on payment of Rs. 900/- per month and, subsequently, on 01.03.2000 he was engaged as casual unskilled labour and worked till 28.02.2001. He was shown to have been engaged as unskilled labourer through labour contractor w.e.f. 01.03.2001 to 31.09.2015 and again from 01.10.2015. Meanwhile, he had submitted representation for grant of temporary status, which was forwarded by Resp. No.4 in memo dated 04.12.2013. The said request of the applicant was not acceded to by Resp. No.1 vide memo dated 01.01.2014 since his claim does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in DP&T OM dated 01.09.1993. Applicant again submitted representation on 21.05.2014, which was forwarded by Resp. No.4 in letter dated RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 27.05.2014 to Resp. No.1. The Resp. No.2 vide letter dated 18.06.2014 intimated that the applicant is not eligible for conferment of temporary status. The applicant submitted representation on 26.11.2014 requesting to allow him to work on contract basis directly but not through contractor, which was forwarded by Resp. No.4 in letter dated 26.11.2014 to Resp. No.1. In response to the letter of Resp. No.1 dated 11.12.2015, Resp. No.4 in letter dated 21.01.2016 given the full justification of requirement of skilled labour. Resp. No.2 vide memorandum dated 23.06.2016 intimated to all concerned for engagement of manpower through labour contractor will be considered by Directorate on the recommendation of the concerned ADG. Resp. No.4 in letter dated 19.07.2016 intimated Resp. No.3 for continuance of the manpower through outsourcing. Applicant submitted representation for his regularization in the post of MTS, which was forwarded by Resp. No.4 in letter dated 22.11.2016 to Resp. No.3. No positive response having been received, he submitted representation to Hon'ble Prime Minister of India on 24.04.2017 for his regularization in the Group-D post, RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 on which, due response was sought and, in letter dated 31.07.2017, Resp. No.4 intimated to Resp. No.2 that the applicant was engaged in a monthly wage of Rs. 900/- per month from time to time in number of occasions w.e.f. 01.05.1997. The work performed by the applicant is perennial in nature. He has been discharging the duties like a regular MTS and, thus, he was entitled to the same pay as has been getting by the regular MTS but the same has not been paid to him, which is in contravention of the provision enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as instruction issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide OM No. 14(113) Misc. RLC. (Coord.)/2012 dated 23.01.2013. Though, the applicant has performed his duties on contract basis through labour contractor but has not been paid his monthly wages for three to four months. It is stated that similar matter came up for consideration before this Bench in TA Nos. 34/2009, 04/2013 and 05/2013 wherein this Bench issued affirmative direction for regularization. The present case being one and the same, the applicant is also entitled to relief. Ld. Counsel for the applicant besides highlighting the aforesaid RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 position has submitted that it is a clear case of exploitation of labour since, even through applicant has been continuing for last more than 20 years, on contract basis, he has been denied his legitimate right for regularization. According to him, the very continuance of the applicant presupposes there is need for regular hand and, therefore, the applicant ought to have been regularized against the post of MTS. In this connection , he has placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Machine Tools & Ors Vs M.Rangaredy & Ors, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1039. Accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in the OA.
2. Respondents filed their counter contesting and objecting the case of the applicant inter alia stating that the applicant was engaged in Prasar Bharati HPT, Doordarshan, Cuttack, from 01.05.1997 on causal basis after which from 01.03.2001 he was engaged as casual labourer through labour contractor. He was never engaged through any process of selection. His engagement was made through local contractor (placement agency) and his engagement was not against any permanent sanctioned post. Respondents denied the assertion of the applicant that he was RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 engaged as causal worker from 2000. He was engaged as causal labourer on need basis on payment of the minimum wages notified by the Govt. of India. His request for conferment of temporary status was examined with reference to the DoP&T OM dated 01.09.1993 but the same was not acceded to as he did not fulfill the conditions stipulated therein. The sum and substance of the stand of the respondents to fortify and justify their stand that the applicant is not eligible and entitled to be regularized, respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, A.Umarani Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors, 2004 (7) SCC 112, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 408, and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Rama Muthuramalingam Vs Dy. S.P., AIR 2005 Mad 1. According to the respondents, the decision of this Bench in TA Nos. 34/2009, 04/2013 and 05/2013 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Machine Tools & Ors Vs M.Rangaredy & Ors, (supra), relied on by the applicant, have RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 no application in the case in hand since the applicant in the instant case was engaged through a third party agency/labour contractor whereas the applicants in TAs were engaged contractually by Doordarshan. Ld. Counsel for the respondents highlighting the position noted above has prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. During pendency of this OA, the applicant filed an affidavit stating therein that as per the Circular No.03/04/2019-LC dated 28.08.2019 and 05.09.2019, the Head of Office, H.P.T., Doordarshan, Cuttack, after verification of the records, vide Memo No. HPTV/CTK/44(5)/2019-20/1250 dated 20.11.2019 has forwarded the bio-data and other relevant documents to the Respondent No.1 for regularization of his service since the applicant has completed more than 12 years continuous services as on 10.04.2006 against vacant post without any order of the court/Tribunal. The respondents through memo has also brought to the notice of this Bench that the case of the applicant was duly considered with others strictly as per the conditions stipulated in the Scheme of Regularization framed by the RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 Doordarshan on 22.08.2019 but he was not found eligible for regularization as per the scheme, which was duly communicated to him electronically on 16.07.2024. The applicant has sought to bring the said rejection under challenge in this OA through MA 85/2025, which prayer was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 05.03.2025. However, the engagement of the applicant initially on casual basis and, subsequently, through third party agency is admitted by the applicant.
4. After giving due consideration to the facts and law, noted above, we have perused the pleadings in the OA, counter, rejoinder filed by the applicant to which reply filed by the respondents, affidavit filed by the applicant, reply affidavit filed by the respondents, and the materials placed in support thereof including the citations.
5. We find that recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh Vs State of UP, 2025 INSC 998 , after considering the earlier decisions in the matter of regularization rendered in the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo Vs. Union RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, and in Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, decided the cases of regularization even for the persons engaged through outsourcing by observing/holding as under:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long- term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 .........
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.""
12. We also note the Commission's affidavit filed in 21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource ClassIV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades.
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
6. We find that this Bench while admitting this OA on 18.10.2017 granted the interim order that during pendency of this case the status quo insofar as the applicant will continue. The respondents rejected the case of the applicant by holding that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria provided in the Scheme dated 01.09.1993 but in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) we are of the considered view that taking into consideration the initial engagement of the applicant on casual basis in the year 1997 and subsequently through third party w.e.f. 01.03.2000, the respondents need to reconsider the case of the applicant for regularization keeping in mind the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Dharma Singh (supra), referred to above, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which they shall do and RAVI KUMAR 2025.09.26 16:05:38 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00587 of 2017 communicate the decision to the applicant within the said period.
7. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.09.26 16:05:38
+05'30'