UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus KRISHNA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
E  KRISHNA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.11948-11950 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
 INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 –
r.6 r/w. r.2(c) and Note 3 of Schedule I – Respondents Nos. 1 & 2
were employed on contractual basis by appellants – Thereafter,
respondents were declared Government servants – Respondents
claimed that they were not treated as members of the Indian
Broadcasting Programme Service by the appellants and were not
considered for promotion – Tribunal directed the Government to
grant respondents all benefits under the Rules and consider their
cases for promotion – High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal
– On appeal, held: It was not in dispute before the High Court that
posts of respondents were regular sanctioned posts – Based on this,
it was held that having due regard to r.6 r/w. r.2(c) and Note 3 of
Schedule I, the posts held by the respondents were deemed to be
included in the service – This interpretation of the High Court borne
out of the Rules was correct – As respondents were declared to be
government servants, it was unfair and inequitable to deny to them
all the benefits, including of pay scales and other conditions of
service applicable to posts in the equivalent pay scale – Tribunal
and the High Court were correct in their findings and conclusions
– Clarification given while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were engaged as TV News
Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent
respectively on contractual basis. Thereafter, the Union Ministry
gave option to the respondents to be treated as Government
servants, which was accepted by them. However, respondents
were not given promotion for twelve years. Aggrieved, they filed
application before the Tribunal claiming that they were not treated
as members of the Indian Broadcasting Programme Service by
the appellants. Tribunal directed the Government to grant
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 225
225
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
respondents all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases
for promotion. High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Hence, the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. First Respondent was engaged on contract on
6th August, 1988 and Second Respondent on 12th August, 1988
respectively. Rule 6 of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service
Rules, 1990 which provides for the initial constitution of the
service stipulates that from the date of the commencement of
the Rules, departmental candidates who held posts on a regular
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 1st January, 1985 in All India Radio and
Doordarshan would be deemed to have been included in the
service and will be added to the strength shown therein. The
High Court has observed that on the date of the commencement
of the Rules, the pay scales of the applicants were Rs. 3000-4500
and Rs. 2200-4000 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. [Para 9] [232-E-F; 233-E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11948-
11950 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated  20.03.2014 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition
(C) Nos. 5471, 5712 and 14673 of 2001.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
K. K. Rai, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radhalakshmi R.,
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, S. K. Pandey, Anshul Rai, Chandra Shekhar A.
Chakalabbi, S. N. Pandey,  Ar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.