Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh Dr Umashanker Singh vs Information And Broadcasting on 7 August, 2025
1
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A./2988/2024
M.A./2728/2024
M.A./2729/2024
Reserved on: 08.07.2025
Pronounced on: 07.08.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Sh. Dr. Umashanker Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Data Bux Singh,
Age 56 years, working as PEX
R/o H.No.-1745
Housing Board Colony,
Sector 15, Sonipat (NCR)
Pin 131001
2. Sh. Yagya Datt Mishra,
S/o Vidya Sagar Mishra,
Age 59 years, working as PEX,
R/o HN-461-22
Chand Nagar, Rohtak-124001
3. Sh. Arun Kumar Sah
S/o Late Sh.Sanatan Sah
Aged about 55 years
R/o T-253, Prem Nagar
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 ... Applicants
(Through Shri Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mrs. Kamlakshi S. Chauhan and Ms.Muskan Jain,
Advocates)
2
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
2. M/o Information and Broadcasting
Through its Secretary,
6th Floor, Shastri Bhavan.
New Delhi-110001
3. Prasar Bharati
Through its CEO
Tower C, Prasar Bharati House
Copernicus Marg, Mandi House,
New Delhi-110001
4. Director General,
All India Radio,
Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
5. The Director General.
Doordarshan
Doordarshan Bhawan
Mandi House, New Delhi-110003
6. Mohan Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Khilavan Yadav
Aged about 36 years
R/o C-12/10, Doordarshan & Radio Staff Quarters,
Radio Colony, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi-110009
Working as Programme Executive (Group "B")
DG: Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110003
7. Jaya Jagriti
D/o Jai Prakash Chaurasia
Aged about 34 years
Working as Programme Executive (Group "B")
In the office of Prasar Bharti
3
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
Resident of Radio Colony, Delhi - 110009
Pin code: 110009
8. Reetu Gupta
D/o Sh. Gyan Prakash Gupta
Aged about 38 years
Working as Programme Executive (Group "B")
In the office of Prasar Bharti
Resident of J-803, Ajnara Le Garden,
Greater Noida West, U.P.
Pincode: 201009
9. Namrata Singh
D/o B.P. Singh
Aged about 36 years
Working as Programme Executive (Group "B")
In the office of Prasar Bharti
Resident of Cv 7/1002, Supertech Capetown,
Sector 74, Noida
Pincode: 201304
10.Gautam Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Mithai Lal Verma
Aged about 41 years
R/o Village-Gagargarh
Post-Dhanghata, Dist.-Sant Kabir Nagar
State-Uttar Pradesh
Pin-272162
Working as Programme Executive
Sales Division, Prasar Bharati
Room No.880, 8th Floor
Soochna Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ...Respondents
(Through Shri S.M. Arif and Shri Tauheed Ahmad for
Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Advocates for official
Respondents and
Shri Prakhar Bhatnagar, Shri Arkam Pasha, for
private respondents)
4
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
1. The present OA has been filed by the applicants seeking direction to the official respondents to implement the decision of the Board by Prasar Bharati in its 125th Board Meeting held on 05.02.2015 and also grant them the benefit of in-situ promotion as PEX for the promotion to the next grade JTS (Programme Cadre) or in other words regularise them in PEX with effect from 29.11.2013, when they were given in-situ promotion as PEX.
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The Prasar Bharati as a Public Sector Undertaking came into existence with effect from 15th September, 1997 under the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990., vide notification dated 22nd July, 1997. It is admitted by both the parties that the present applicants were working as Transmission Executives with All India Radio and Doordarshan since 1994. As per Section 11 of the said Act, all officers and employees recruited for the purpose of Akashvani and Doordarshan before the appointed day i.e. 15th September, 2007 and in service of the Corporation on 1st day of April 2000, shall be on deemed deputation to the Corporation with effect from 1st April 2000 until 5 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 their retirement. Again, as per Section 11(2), officers and employees recruited during the period on or after 5th October 2007 shall also be on deemed deputation with effect from 1.04.2000 or the date of their joining service in the Corporation, whichever is later and until their retirement. Their service conditions would be governed by the respective Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution or regulations made under the Act. They would be entitled to all service benefits as admissible to an employee of Central Government. The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Recruitment of Officers and Employees of the Corporation Regulations, 2016 were notified on 11.11.2016. Section 11(5) states that all officers and employees recruited after 5th day of October 2007 shall be officers and employees of the Corporation and be governed by such conditions of service as may be specified in service. As it has been stated above, no regulations in Prasar Bharati were in place till 11.11.2016. As per Section 11B, all posts in the erstwhile Doordarshan and Akashvani, other than the exceptions under Section 11A (2), would be deemed to have been transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1.4.2000. In other words, there were no posts left with the Government (Akashvani and Doordarshan) for career progression etc. under the extant Rules applicable to such central government employees, who were taken in Prasar Bharati as deemed educationists. 6
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 2.2 It is claimed by the applicants that The Board of Prasar
Bharati in its 115th and 116th Board meetings dated 20.09.2013 and 29.11.2013 respectively, it was decided to promote the regular Transmission Executives (TREX) to the next higher grade in PEX to address the issue of stagnation. The 123rd Board Meeting on 18.09.2014 decided to address the issue of seniority of TREX and PEX by amending the RRs. Vide its 125th Board meeting on 5.02.2015, the Corporation decided to promote the deemed deputationist PEXs by fixing zero ratio for Direct Recruits. The Prasar Bharati came out with the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Recruitment of Officers and employees of the Corporation Regulations, 2016 vide notification dated 11.11.2016. However, these regulations did not take cognizance of the decision taken in the 125th Board meeting of Prasar Bharati on 5.02.2015 to address the issue of seniority of the deputationist in- situ PEXs vs the Direct Recruit PEXs. Subsequently, vide the impugned orders/communications, the Respondent Prasar Bharati is trying to promote the PEXs to the next higher grade ignoring the decision of the Board in its meeting dated 5.02.2015. The respondent Corporation regularised the in-situ PEXs vide their decision dated 30.06.2023 against vacancy year 2019. The respondents, vide communications dated 12.04.2024 and 13.10.2023, are trying to fix different ratios, than what has been agreed in the 125th Board meeting, for promotion of PEXs to next 7 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 higher grade. The applicants submitted their representation dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure-A14 page 218-276). Vide communication dated 10.06.2024, the respondent Prasar Bharati rejected the claim of the applicants. Being aggrieved, they have filed the present Original Application seeking the following relief:
"a. Direct the respondents to implement promise made through the Board decision taken in the 125th meeting dated 05/12/2015 and apply the rule of zero seniority.
b. Direct the respondents to count the service rendered by the applicants/PEX in situ for the promotion to next grade i.e. JTS (Programme Cadre).
c. Quash and set aside the orders dated 15/07/2024, 12/04/2024 and 13/10/2023 passed by the respondents to create a new ratio rule for feeder cadre i.e JTS.
d. Quashing of order dated 31/01/2022 for reason of delay m regularising the service.
e. Direct the respondents to regularize the service of Applicants i.e. PEX lnsitu from 29/11/2013.
f. Direct the respondents to convene the DPC for JTS cadre for the applicants i.e. PEX insitu after considering the regularization date from 29/11/2013.
g. Direct the respondents to give one time relaxation in Recruitment Rules/Regulations for counting the service as PEX insitu/Personal for the purpose of seniority for promotion to next JTS Grade (Programme cadre) h. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances may kindly be ordered."
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicants have also filed their rejoinder.
8
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
4. Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, learned counsel, represents the direct recruits who have been appointed after 2007. He has preferred M.A. No. 2039/2025 seeking impleadment. He submits that in case the O.A. is to be interfered with, they would be affected party. In view of the above, M.A. No. 2039/2025 for impleadment is allowed. Respondents were directed to file an amended memo of parties.
5. Submission by Mr. Arun Bharadwaj, learned senior Counsel for the applicants 5.1 With respect to the claim of the applicants, learned senior counsel for the applicants makes the following submissions :-
i. That the applicants were extended In-situ promotion by the order dated 29.11.2023 placed at page 68 of the O.A. The order dated 29.11.2013 would confirm that the In-situ promotion was a personal upgradation.
Further, the applicants have continued as PREX by virtue of the in situ promotion till date. Though, the order reflects that the applicants were given only personal upgradation for all intents and purposes but they have been discharging the duties and functions of Programme Executive. He elaborates that the above position can be confirmed from the order dated 9 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 30.01.2014 placed at page 49 of the O.A., the table therein explains that the applicants while performing the duties as PEX were assessing the work of their juniors, exercising financial duties in the absence of the Heads and were under the supervision of the immediate supervisors as ADP.
ii. He submits, between the period from the year 1994 when the applicants were appointed initially and till date, they have earned three financial upgradations by way of the MACP scheme introduced by the Government of India. Therefore, while they were discharging the duties and functions of PEX, they were already in receipt of the pay scale and emoluments of PEX. Hence, the applicants were in receipt of the salary of PEX, they were discharging the duties of PEX, but not considered for next promotion for want of eligibility in light of the In-situ promotion.
iii. The applicants have been extended regular promotion to the post of PEX as per the document annexed at page 107 of the O.A. iv. Drawing attention to the Recruitment Rules dated 05.11.1990 placed at page 60 of the O.A. He submits, the post of Junior Time Scale Programme Executive which has been redesignated as AD(P), a Programme 10 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 Executive with three years regular service in the grade are entitled to be considered for promotion under the 50% promotion quota. The applicants have since completed three years of service as PEX in the year 2016, therefore, they are entitled to be considered for promotion in the year 2016 itself subject to the availability of posts. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
5. Junior 50% by Programme Time Scale promotion Executives and 50% by with three Programme direct years' Officer recruitment regular in service in Rs. 1200- accordance the grade.
75-2800- with sub HB-100- rule 2 of 4000 rule 7 v. Drawing attention to the counter reply filed by the respondents, he submits that the reply confirms that the while extending In-situ promotion the applicants were subjected to a regular DPC. It was only after being considered and recommended by the DPC that they were extended promotion In-situ. The applicants met all the criteria for regular promotion, while they were extended In-situ promotion. Hence, the applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion on regular basis 11 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 from the year 2013 itself for the post of Programme Executive.
vi. Drawing strength from the Board's Resolution placed at page 132 of the O.A. which has been approved by the competent authority on 05.02.2015 (Page 138), he submit that the resolution would confirm that the incumbents who were on deemed deputation were entitled to be considered for promotion vis a vis the promotees in the ratio of 100: 0 (Zero) till each of the deemed deputationists are either promoted or they retire. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the applicants were promoted by way of In-situ promotions to the post of PEX, they are entitled to be considered for further promotion in light of the Board's resolution at page 132 which has been approved on 05.02.2015 Page
138. vii. The RRs as well as the Board's resolution would confirm that the applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of AD(P) on completion of three years' of regular service.
viii. He submits that even today there are as many as 400 posts lying vacant with the respondents against which each of the applicants and direct recruits could be 12 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 promoted. He adds that the deemed deputationists are about to reach the age of superannuation.
ix. As the applicants are already in receipt of the pay scales accorded to the AD(P), there would not be any financial burden upon the respondents in case the applicants are considered for promotion to the post of AD(P).
x. In case the direct recruits, who have been appointed after the present applicants were appointed, are promoted to the post of AD(P) the applicants would be persuaded to work under their juniors who were not even born when the applicants came in the organization.
xi. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 16062/2017 dated 16.01.2019. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"He continued working as such till 15.1.2016 when he was given additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer as per his seniority on 15.1.2016 as the senior most Sub Divisional Engineer was facing disciplinary proceedings at that time.13
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 The next channel of promotion from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer is to the post of Executive Engineer.
This promotion is governed by the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering Wing) Group-A Service Rules, 2007, which prescribe the following requirement for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer:-
"From amongst the Sub Divisional Engineers, who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of eight years."
Respondent No.2 represented to the Authorities on 14.7.2016 to consider and promote him to the post of Executive Engineer (Public Health) by including and considering as experience the period from 4.8.2008 to 26.12.2011 when he held the additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. The said representation having been rejected on 15.9.2016, he filed the Original Application.
The sole question before the Tribunal was, whether the period when respondent No.2 held additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer from 4.8.2008 to 26.12.2011 could be considered as experience of working 14 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 as Sub Divisional Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
The learned Tribunal noted that the additional charge was given to respondent No.2 on account of his seniority and efficiency. It was not the case of the Administration that while discharging the additional responsibility of Sub Divisional Engineer, his functioning as such was curtailed in any manner in terms of authority and powers of Sub Divisional Engineer. In other words, his working on the additional charge was as good as regular charge. The Tribunal further noted that the applicable Rule does not rule out an interpretation that an additional charge or current duty charge could not be taken as experience for promotion. Reliance was placed on D.P.Mehta (Dr.) vs. PGI and its Governing Body RSJ 1997(1) 503, wherein, this Court directed that the experience gained by the petitioner therein who was given additional charge of Deputy Medical Superintendent be taken into consideration for promotion to the post of Joint Medical Superintendent. It was held that where the rule does not specifically postulate the requirement of experience of having worked on regular basis consideration could not be denied only on the ground that the incumbent only 15 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 had additional charge of the post. Accordingly, the Original Application was allowed."
xii. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that in case the contents of the counter reply are accepted then it would a situation where the applicants have not received any promotion for 33 years of service rendered with the respondents.
6. Submission by Mr. S.M. Arif learned counsel for the Respondents no.2-4 6.1 At the outset, Mr. S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2-4 clarifies the status of the applicants. He submits that prior to 1997, when the Prasar Bharti came into being the applicants were regular employees of Government of India and pursuant to 01.11.1997 the applicants were placed with the Prasar Bharti and were called as deemed Deputationists. They continue to be deemed Deputationists with the Prasar Bharti even today. At the relevant point in time, the applicants raised a grievance with respect to their salary and on 25.02.1999 by virtue of an OM issued by the Ministry, the applicants were extended two additional scales in the pay and allowances. He submits, the applicants were given an option to continue as Government of India employee or as deemed Deputationists. In case they chose to be the government 16 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 employee, the upgraded scales would not be extended to them and if they continued as deemed Deputationists they were allowed two scales up-gradation. He submits, the applicants chose to continue as deemed Deputationists. All this while they have continued as deemed Deputationists. He further makes the following submissions:-
1. On 31.01.2018 by virtue of an OM one of the up- gradation was set off against MACP. The OM dated 31.01.2018 was challenged by a set of employees before the Tribunal, and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal upheld the OM dated 31.01.2018. However, the recoveries of the excess amount received by the applicants were quashed. The decision of setting of one up-gradation against the MACP was confirmed and upheld by the Tribunal.
2. After 2007 there are two sets of employees with the Prasar Bharti, i.e., Deemed Deputationists and the employees who have been employed by Prasar Bharti themselves who are called as the employees of Prasar Bharti. Programme Executives have two modes of recruitment, 50% by promotion and 50% from Deemed Deputationists. In terms of Regulations 2007, TREX are entitled to be considered for promotion as the feeder grade.
3. By way of order dated 29.11.2013, In-situ promotions were extended to the applicants to the post of PEX (Page
68). He submits that the OM dated 29.11.2013 details the conditions which the applicants were to meet while extending In-situ promotions. Along with order dated 17 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 29.11.2013 there is a seniority list of the TREX, and they were extended In-situ promotion. The applicants are at serial number 266, 216 and 326 respectively. By the order dated 30.06.2023 the applicants have been extended regular promotion to the post of Program Executive and while doing the exercise, 172 vacancies for direct recruitment quota have been diverted to enable the applicants to get promoted as a one time measure.
4. Pursuant to the Regulations of 2007 there is a set of employees, who have been appointed as Programme Executive on direct recruitment basis and in case the O.A. is to be interfered with then these direct recruits would be put at a disadvantage and these people have not been made a party in the instant O.A.
5. As the applicants are at serial number 266, 216 and 326 of the seniority list, in case the relief was to be extended to them, there are several others who are above the applicants who would also be entitled to relief which cannot be extended at this stage.
6. The first representation preferred by the applicant is of the year 2022 and during the interregnum, that is, between 29.11.2013 and the year 2022, the applicants have not raised any concern until they were regularized by order dated 30.06.2023.
7. The applicant number 1 and 2 are residents of Haryana and in the absence of transfer petition, the O.A. cannot be entertained. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the relief prayed for by them.
8. Placed reliance on para 3, 4 and 6 of the counter reply which read as follows:-
18
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 "3. That as per the conditions submitted above, it is clear that the status of PEX In- Situ was not guaranteeing any financial benefit, Seniority, and shall also not be counted for the purpose of promotions. Owing to these terms, the promotion orders were accepted by the applicants while being very well aware that this was a temporary arrangement. It is worth mentioning that the status of PEX In- situ does not in any way impart any obligation on the part of organization to treat them as regular PEX. For an employee to be regarded as regular PEX, the promotion has to be done against the vacant position which was not available in this case. These employees were very well aware of these facts, which were reiterated through various terms and conditions stipulated in the order dated 29.11.2013 while granting them the status of PEXs (in situ). It is worth mentioning that the applicants were later promoted to the post of regular PEX in the year 2022 and has been regularized against the vacancy years 2019 and subsequent years.
4. That further, it is to mention that Direct Recruitment in the post of PEX was made by this Department in the year 2014- 15 and 2015-16. These Direct Recruits have joined in the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 as regular PEX and therefore, fulfill requisite qualifications for considering of being promoted to the further post/grade as compared to those promoted to the post of PEX for the later vacancy years and therefore, these DR Corporation PEXs are eligible for promotion along with the promoted PEXs in the order of their eligibility and merit.
6. That it is evident from the above Agenda Note that the provision of keeping ratio zero for deemed deputationists vis- a-vis the new recruits was only for those deemed deputationists who had been promoted to the post of PEX against the vacancy year prior to 2013. It does not imply in any manner that the ratio will remain zero for all the all the Direct Recruit PEX vis a vis deemed deputationist TREX and equivalent Cadres, promoted to the post of PEX against the 19 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 vacancy years after 2013, in violation of the principle of Seniority and Merit."
7. Submission by Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the Private Respondents 6 to 10 7.1 Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel, is extended an opportunity to assist us by way of oral submissions. He submits that the applicants/impleaded respondents have joined in the year 2015. While drawing attention to the prayer in the O.A. he submits that by virtue of the prayer in the O.A., the applicants therein are seeking a change in the ratio from 50:50 to 100:0. He submits that this virtually negates the presence of direct recruits. He submits, the said decision of 50:50 was taken by the competent authority in the meeting held on 05.12.2015. After recognizing the rights of the direct recruits the committee has taken a conscious decision, which cannot be turned at this stage. Each of the impleaded private respondents have been appointed in pursuance to the Regulations of 2007. Therefore, it would not be fair to submit that they have been appointed in the absence of recruitment rules. The promotion could be done strictly in terms of the Recruitment Rules to the post of ADP which have been notified on 11.11.2016. The RRs do not prescribe a defined ratio. However the rules confirm that both the categories would be duly considered. 20
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
8. Rejoinder submission by Mr. Arun Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel for the applicants 8.1 In rejoinder, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the applicants assisted by Ms. Kamlakshi Singh, learned counsel, submits, all that the applicants seek by virtue of the present O.A. is reckoning of their service from the date of In-situ promotion in the year 2013 as PEX towards the promotion to the post of ADP. He submits, the applicants have been regularized in the year 2023 and are already in receipt of the remuneration attached to the post. Therefore, there would not be any financial burden upon the respondents. In light of the resolution dated 05.02.2015 which has been issued after deliberations at the end of the Ministry, the respondents are obliged to follow the same. The applicants are en- bloc senior to the employees of the Corporation hence, they are entitled to be considered for promotion before the Corporation employees. He places reliance on the comparison chart prepared by him between the two sets of employees. For better appreciation the said table is reproduced below :-
"
Deemed PB Corporation Remarks
Deputation Pex Pex
1 Initial entry on Combined
the requisition of screening Test
Ministry of I& B held for Trex and
through all India Pex for Prasar
Completive exam Bharati by SSC.
21
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
by SSC as whole Where only
sole agency from screening test
written to was conducted
interview by SSC and
everything done combined merit
by SSC list handed over
to PB.
2 Central Corporation
government employees PB
employees under Act 1990
GOI 309 of
constitution of
India
3 Promoted as Recruited as
insitu on 29-11- corporation Pex
2013 GP non gazetted GP
4800(Joined as 4600 in 2015 on
Trex in 1994) as the basis of
Programme screening test by
Executive where SSC.
as direct PEX on
deemed
deputation were
recruited by
UPSC
4 Working as Working as non
central govt gr B gazetted
gazzetted employees of
employees corporation
5 Inter se seniority PB Pexs are non
cannot be gazetted
published as corporation
these are different employee and no
set of employees. RRs are notified
till date
Deemed
deputationist
PEXS RRs are
notified.
6 Reporting officer RO is ADP since
of Pex(in-situ) their joining in
deemed 2015 onwards.
deputationist are
Assistant
Director(P) since
November 2013.
7 Ad-hoc bonus Ad hoc bonus An attempt is made
was not given to was given to PB to show PB
in-situ Pexs since corporation Pexs corporation Pexs Nov 2013 but it but withdrawn above deemed was started in unilaterally in deputation Pexs 2021-22 2021-22 while DOPT & DOE allows non-
productivity linked bonus to non-
gazetted staff An
22
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
RTI for the same
was filed but no
reply was provided
by the PB in this
regard.
9. Rejoinder submission by Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the private respondents
9.1 Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the private respondents, submits that the promotion cannot be effected to de- hors the recruitment rules. The resolution dated 05.02.2015 are mere executive instructions and the rules would prevail. He relies on the following judgments to strengthen his arguments:-
i) Decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6987/2015 titled Union of India and Ors. Versus Satish Kumar and Ors. dated 17.04.2017.
ii) Apex Court in CA No. 2720/2001 titled Dr. Rajinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Others dated 11.04.2001.
10. The arguments were concluded on 27.05.2025. However, while dictating the order certain queries came to the mind of the Bench and accordingly, the matter has been listed under the head 'For Being Spoken To' on 8.07.2025. Answers to certain queries and some documents are being sought from the learned counsel. The same read as follows:- 23
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024
1. A copy of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990.
2. What happened to the fate of the IB(P)S Rules of 1990 after 05.10.2007. Whether they still exist? Have they been abandoned or have they been modified?
3. Was there any scope for promotion of employees like the present applicants under the Rules of 1990 till regularization.
4. Under which Rules/Regulations the employees like the present applicants were given in-situ promotion as PEX and subsequently regularized as PEX?
5. A copy of the Prasar Bharti (Programme) Service Regulations, 2016.
6. What is the current status of the proposal for promotion of employees in Prasar Bharti approved by the 182 Board meeting as per the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2-4?
11. In response to the Tribunal's order dated 27.05.2025, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted the necessary clarifications vide affidavit dated 21.07.2025. Similarly, the learned counsel for Respondents 2-4 furnished necessary clarifications vide affidavit dated 30.7.2025.
12. Analysis 12.1 We have heard the submissions by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused all records including the additional affidavits from both parties in response to the queries raised on 8.07.2025. For adjudication of the present Original Application, it was thought of framing the following issues: 24
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 Issue No.1: Do the applicants have indefeasible right to get promoted to the next higher rank from the rank of Transmission Executives (TEX) prior to their in-situ promotion as PEX on 29.11.2023?.
Issue No.2 Do the present applicants have indefeasible right to be considered as regular PEX of Prasar Bharati from the date of their in-situ promotion to the rank of PEX on 29.11.2013? Issue No.3 What is the legal status of the decisions of the 125th Prasar Bharati Board meeting dated 5.02.2015 and 182nd Board meeting?
Issue No.4 Are the Principles of equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India violated in case of present Applicants?
12.2 Issue no.1:
As per Section 11B of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990, all posts of erstwhile Doordarshan and Akashvani (the posts under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting were transferred enmass to Prasar Bharati with effect from 1.04.2000. All employees of the erstwhile Akashvani and Doordarshan were transferred to Parsar Bharati as deemed deputationists. But the aforementioned enactment of 1990 ensured that their service conditions would be as per Central Govt.25
C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 employees. In other words, they would be governed by the respective service rules. The following are some sample service Rules governing the Doordarshan Programme Executives:
S.No. Category of Name of the post Name of the Date of posts recruitment rules notification concerned
4. Junior 1 Edit Supervisor The Doordarshan 09th Programme Programme December, Posts - (Technical Group 'B' 1995 Doordarshan Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 2 Film/Editor The Doordarshan 16th July, Programme 1998 (Technical/ Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 3 Floor Manager The Doordarshan 2nd Programme September, (Technical/ Group 'C' 1989 Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 4 Floor Assistant The Doordarshan 16th July, Programme 1988 (Technical/ Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 5 Graphic Doordarshan 09th Supervisor Programme December, (Technical/ Group 'B' 1995 Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 6 Graphic Artist The Doordarshan 16th July, Programme 1988 (Technical/ Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 7 Make-up The Doordarshan 16th July, Assistant Programme 1988 (Technical/ Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988 But the promotions to the next rank depends on availability of posts. All the posts in erstwhile Doordarshan and Akashvani were transferred to Prasar Bharati, implying there were no posts left with the Ministry of I&B to promote eligible employees of the 26 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 erstwhile two organisations. It is fairly averred by Mr. Arif as well as it is referred in the additional affidavit filed on 30.07.2025 that the deputationists were given option to migrate to Prasar Bharati.
But, the deputationists, like the present Applicants, preferred not to opt for Prasar Bharati because of their own preference, perhaps considering better service conditions like pension etc. as Central govt. employees. Once they opted to remain as deemed deputationists and refused to migrate to the Corporation, and because the fact that there were no posts left with the government to promote them to the next ranks they were left with a service with no scope for promotion. It is worthwhile to mention that the regulations dated 11.11.2016 mention that there were four Regulations governing the officers and employees of Prasar Bharati. These are:
"(i) the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) (Junior Civil Construction Wing Posts) Service Regulations, 2002, in so far as they relate to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) (Field/Planning), Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Field/Planning), Architectural Assistant Grade-I and Arthitectural Assistant Grade-I and Arthitectural Assistant Grade-II.
(ii) the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) (Junior Programme Posts) Recruitment Regulations, 2002, in so far as they relate to the posts of Film/Video Editor, Floor manager, Floor Assistant, Graphic Artist and Make-up Assistant;
(iii) the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) (Senior Administrative and Allied Posts) Service Regulations, 2002, in so far as they relate to the post of Deputy Director (Administrative Training), Staff Training School (Programme);
iv) the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Broadcasting (Engineers) Service Regulations, 2001, 27 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 except as respects of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India), with the prior approval of the Central Government, hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement (1) These regulations may be called the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Recruitment of Officers and Employees of the Corporation Regulations, 2016.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Application - These regulations shall apply to the officers and employees of the Prasar Bharati Corporation, recruited after the 5th October, 2007 or who may be recruited by the Prasar Bharati Corporation hereinafter, to the categories of posts specified in Schedule-I.
3. Method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications, etc.- (1) The method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and the other matters relating to the posts specified in Schedule-II shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the corresponding posts specified in Schedule-I except, the provisions relating to consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. (2) The officers and employees recruited under these regulations shall be officers and employees of the Prasar Bharati Corporation.
(3) (a) There shall be a Departmental Promotion Committee for considering promotion to Group "A" posts.
(b) For the purposes of sub-clause (a), the Prasar Bharati Board may constitute the Departmental Promotional Committee with the Chief Executive Officer or Member (Personnel) of the Prasar Bharati Board as the Chaitperson depending on the post for which the Committee is to be constituted.
(4) No officer or employee recruited under these regulations shall be entitled to the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation or Non-Functional Selection Grade or any other benefit available to organized Group "A" service.
(5) The number of posts in each grade is the total number of the posts sanctioned for that grade Provided that the number of posts shall not exceed the aggregate number of posts occupied by the Government servants on deemed deputation to the Prasar Bharati 28 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 Corporation and the officers and employees of the Prasar Bharati Corporation.
(6) The vacancies arising in a particular year in each grade shall, other than the vacancies in direct recruitment quota, be filled up by two categories of employees in the feeder grades, that is, the Government servants on deemed deputation to the Prasar Bharati Corporation and the officers and employees of the Prasar Bharati Corporation, as may be notified by the Prasar Bharati Corporation." The present applicants, by opting to remain as deputationists by their own volition, forfeited their right to be considered for promotion to the higher ranks as per the above regulations against available vacancies.
Hence, the applicants, on their own choosing, chose an option where they did not have any scope for promotion in Prasar Bharati. But they availed better service conditions like pension etc. as Central govt. employees. It is fairly admitted by both the parties that the respondent corporation has given them due ACP and MACP benefits due to lack of promotional avenues. In view of the above, we hold that the present applicants do not have indefeasible right to get promotion to next higher ranks during the period 1.04.2000 to 29.11.2013. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided.
12.3 Issue No.2 The analysis as carried out for issue no.1 is valid for Issue No.2 too. As the deputationists like the present applicants choose to remain govt. employees despite option was given to them 29 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 to migrate to Prasar Bharati, they do not have any legal claim to be promoted to the next higher rank against non-existent vacancies qua the Ministry of I&B Service Rules. It is their own choosing to retain the so-called better service conditions as Govt. employees. They can not have the cake and eat it too. The in-situ enmass promotion is a consolation to the deputationists for their follies committed since long. But, such humanitarian consideration by the respondents could not give them indefeasible right to get regular promotion from the date they got in-situ promotion. In-situ promotions are only change in designation without getting the grade and without any regular vacancies earmarked for them, though pay scales may be same because of ACP/MACP benefits. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided.
12.4 Issue No.3: What is the legal status of the decisions of the 125th Prasar Bharati Board meeting dated 5.02.2015 and subsequently in 182nd Board meeting?
Board decisions are executive decisions. Unless, such decisions are backed by relevant regulations as per the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, they do not have any legal binding on the respondents. Board decision of today may get abrogated, or amended by subsequent Board decisions. Hence, we are unable to accept the claim of the present applicants that they should get the benefit of the decision 30 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 of 125th Board Meeting of Prasar Bharati, dated 5.02.2015, and subsequently as per any decision in the 182nd Board Meeting. 12.5 Issue No.4: Are the principles of equality and non- discrimination as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India violated in case of the present applicants? The deputationists have chosen a path of their career progression on their own volition. When the option was there to migrate to Prasar Bharati to avail regular promotions to next higher ranks against available vacancies in Prasar Bharati as per Prasar Bharati Service Regulations, the deputationists were guided by the better service conditions as government servants. They availed the benefits of ACP/MACP. Hence, there was no deliberate discrimination and deliberate creation of stagnation in respect of the cadres to which the present applicants belong. Again, by their own volition, the present applicants decided to accept in-situ promotions issued vide order dated 29.11.2013. They never challenged this order. It is worth mentioning that the present applicants were regularised as PEX on 30.06.2023 against vacancy year 2019. They have not challenged this order too. Hence, for all purposes, they are regular PEX from the vacancy years 2019. They have attained the legal status of PEX from the vacancy year 2019. The Prasar Bharati, started recruiting Direct Recruit PEX in the year 2014-15 and 2015-16. The direct Recruits because of their 31 C-3/Item-1 OA-2988/2024 year of recruitment would obviously march over the deputationists. Because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and because of the actions by the present applicants from time to time, on their own volition, there is no violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
13. Conclusion 13.1 In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicants during his submissions and those cited by the applicants in their pleadings are not relevant to the present case because of significantly different facts and circumstances prevailing in the instant case. 13.2 In view of the above analysis, the present OA lacks merit and hence is dismissed.
13.3 All pending MAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly. 13.4 No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dkm/