LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/union-of-india-ors-vs-krishna-rao-ors-etc-etc-20180926/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Union of India & Ors. vs Krishna Rao & Ors. etc. etc.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
26 September 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos.11948-11950 of 2016
Result
Disposed
Bench
Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee
Citation
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 225 : 2018 INSC 882
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 12 S.C.R. 225 : 2018 INSC 882
Headnote

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 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

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

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 1 st 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]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1.The appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 20 March 2014. The High Court rejected a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal1 directing the appellants to provide to the Respondents all benefits of service and to consider their cases for promotions in accordance with the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules 1990.2 2. The First Respondent was engaged as a TV News Correspondent on contract for a period of five years on 6 August 1988. The second Respondent
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →