LEGAL ISSUE: Whether contract employees of Doordarshan, later declared government servants, are entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive associated benefits.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. E. Krishna Rao & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 26 September 2018
Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 874
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indira Banerjee, J
Can contract employees, who were later declared government servants, be denied the benefits of a regular service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning employees of Doordarshan. The core issue was whether certain contract employees, who were later declared government servants, were entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service (IBPS) and receive associated benefits, including promotions. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and Justice Indira Banerjee, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Case Background
The First Respondent, E. Krishna Rao, was initially engaged as a TV News Correspondent on contract for five years starting 6 August 1988. The Second Respondent was engaged as a TV Assistant News Correspondent on contract from 12 August 1988. The Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 (the Rules) came into effect on 5 November 1990. These rules did not specifically mention the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent.
On 29 November 1991, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sought options from the Respondents on whether they wanted to be treated as government servants or continue as contractual employees. The First Respondent opted to be treated as a government servant. Subsequently, on 21 March 1992, the Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad, declared the First Respondent a government servant with effect from 6 August 1988, effectively terminating his contract. The Second Respondent was similarly declared a government servant.
Despite being declared government servants, the Respondents were not granted any promotions for twelve years. Aggrieved, they filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that they were not treated as members of the IBPS. The CAT ruled in their favor, directing the government to grant them all benefits under the Rules and consider their cases for promotion.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 6 August 1988 | First Respondent engaged as TV News Correspondent on contract. |
| 12 August 1988 | Second Respondent engaged as TV Assistant News Correspondent on contract. |
| 5 November 1990 | The Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 came into effect. |
| 29 November 1991 | Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sought options from the Respondents regarding their status as government servants. |
| 21 March 1992 | Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad, declared the First Respondent a government servant with effect from 6 August 1988. |
| 1999 | Respondents filed applications before the CAT due to lack of promotions. |
| 20 March 2014 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the challenge to the CAT order. |
| 26 September 2018 | Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and Tribunal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the Respondents, directing the government to grant them all benefits under the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, and to consider their cases for promotion. The Union of India challenged this order before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the Respondents met the definition of “departmental candidates” under the Rules. The High Court also relied on Note 3 of Schedule I to the Rules, which states that posts sanctioned for various schemes in All India Radio and Doordarshan after 1 January 1985 are deemed to have been included in the service.
Legal Framework
The core of the legal framework revolves around the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990.
✓ Rule 2(c) of the Rules defines “Departmental Candidates” as:
- “(i) 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 and”
- “(ii) All officers appointed on regular basis to the post of video executive in Doordarshan in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500;”
✓ Rule 6 of the Rules outlines the initial constitution of the service:
- “(1) 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 Service.”
✓ Note 3 of Schedule I of the Rules states:
- “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.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent were not specifically included in the Rules. Therefore, the Respondents could not be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade (selection grade).
- The appellants contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue directions to include posts not explicitly mentioned in the Rules.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The Respondents argued that they fit the definition of “departmental candidates” under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, as they were declared government servants with retrospective effect.
- They contended that Rule 6 of the Rules, along with Note 3 of Schedule I, implied that all regular posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985, including theirs, should be deemed to be included in the service.
- The Respondents emphasized that they were denied promotions for twelve years despite being declared government servants, which was discriminatory.
Intervenors’ Arguments:
- The intervenors, who were in similar situations as the Respondents, argued that the Rules should also apply to them.
- They submitted that the government initially offered promotions to the Respondents and others after a probation period of 2 years, but these promotions were not implemented.
- They pointed out that the appellants published a gazette notification with truncated Recruitment Rules 2014, excluding Group A posts of TV Assistant News Correspondents, to prevent affected parties from benefitting from the judgment.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Posts not included in Rules | Posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent not explicitly in Rules | Appellants |
| Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue directions for posts not in Rules | Appellants | |
| Respondents are “departmental candidates” | Respondents declared government servants with retrospective effect | Respondents |
| Rule 6 and Note 3 of Schedule I imply inclusion of regular posts after 1 Jan 1985 | Respondents | |
| Denial of promotions for 12 years is discriminatory | Respondents | |
| Rules should apply to Intervenors | Intervenors in similar situation as Respondents | Intervenors |
| Government initially offered promotions after probation, but not implemented | Intervenors | |
| Gazette notification with truncated Recruitment Rules 2014 to prevent benefits | Intervenors |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue as understood from the judgment is:
- Whether the Respondents, who were initially contract employees but later declared government servants, are entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive associated benefits, including promotions, under the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether contract employees later declared government servants are entitled to be included in IBPS? | Yes | The Court held that the Respondents fit the definition of “departmental candidates” and that Rule 6 read with Note 3 of Schedule I implies that their posts should be deemed to be included in the service. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following legal provisions:
- Rule 2(c) of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, which defines “Departmental Candidates.”
- Rule 6 of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, which provides for the initial constitution of the service.
- Note 3 of Schedule I of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990, which states that posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985 are deemed to be included in the service.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 2(c), Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 | Legal Provision | The Court used this definition to determine if the Respondents qualified as “departmental candidates.” |
| Rule 6, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 | Legal Provision | The Court relied on this rule to establish that departmental candidates holding regular posts in specified pay scales would be deemed appointed to corresponding posts in the service. |
| Note 3 of Schedule I, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990 | Legal Provision | The Court used this note to conclude that posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985, including those held by the Respondents, were deemed to be included in the service. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Posts of TV News Correspondent and TV Assistant News Correspondent not explicitly in Rules | Appellants | Rejected. The Court held that Note 3 of Schedule I deemed these posts to be included in the service. |
| Tribunal had no jurisdiction to issue directions for posts not in Rules | Appellants | Rejected. The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as the posts were deemed included by virtue of Note 3. |
| Respondents declared government servants with retrospective effect | Respondents | Accepted. The Court agreed that this made them “departmental candidates.” |
| Rule 6 and Note 3 of Schedule I imply inclusion of regular posts after 1 Jan 1985 | Respondents | Accepted. The Court agreed with this interpretation. |
| Denial of promotions for 12 years is discriminatory | Respondents | Accepted. The Court found it unfair and inequitable to deny benefits to government servants. |
| Rules should apply to Intervenors | Intervenors | Implicitly accepted. The Court’s decision benefits all similarly situated employees. |
| Government initially offered promotions after probation, but not implemented | Intervenors | Not specifically addressed, but the Court’s decision implies that such employees should be considered for promotion. |
| Gazette notification with truncated Recruitment Rules 2014 to prevent benefits | Intervenors | Not specifically addressed, but the Court’s decision renders such actions ineffective. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Rule 2(c) of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990: The Court used this definition to determine that the Respondents qualified as “departmental candidates” because they were appointed on a regular basis after being declared government servants.
- Rule 6 of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990: The Court relied on this rule to establish that departmental candidates holding regular posts in specified pay scales would be deemed appointed to corresponding posts in the service from the date of commencement of the rules.
- Note 3 of Schedule I of the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990: The Court used this note to conclude that posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985, including those held by the Respondents, were deemed to be included in the service, thereby entitling them to the benefits of the service.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The Court emphasized the retrospective declaration of the Respondents as government servants, which qualified them as “departmental candidates” under the Rules.
- The Court highlighted the deeming provision in Note 3 of Schedule I, which included posts sanctioned after 1 January 1985 in the service, thereby covering the posts held by the Respondents.
- The Court stressed the unfairness and inequity of denying the Respondents the benefits of regular service, including promotions and pay scales, despite their status as government servants.
- The Court also considered the fact that the Respondents were denied promotions for an extended period of twelve years, which was seen as a violation of their rights.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Retrospective declaration as government servants | 30% |
| Deeming provision of Note 3, Schedule I | 35% |
| Unfairness and inequity of denial of benefits | 25% |
| Denial of promotions for twelve years | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Respondents were contract employees
Respondents declared government servants retrospectively
Rule 2(c) defines “departmental candidates”
Respondents fit the definition of “departmental candidates”
Rule 6 and Note 3 of Schedule I deem their posts included in the service
Denying benefits is unfair and inequitable
Respondents entitled to benefits of regular service, including promotions
The court considered the arguments and legal provisions and concluded that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of regular service.
The Supreme Court clarified that:
- “promotions which have already been effected and the existing seniority shall not be affected;”
- “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;”
- “individual cases for promotion would be considered against vacancies available, keeping seniority in view.”
Key Takeaways
- Contract employees who are later declared government servants are entitled to the benefits of regular service.
- Deeming provisions in service rules can include posts not explicitly mentioned in the rules.
- Denying benefits of regular service to government servants is unfair and inequitable.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- Promotions already effected and existing seniority should not be affected.
- For retired employees, notional pay fixation should be carried out, and retiral benefits, including pension, should be determined on that basis.
- Individual cases for promotion should be considered against available vacancies, keeping seniority in view.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that contract employees who are later declared government servants are entitled to the benefits of regular service, including promotions and pay scales, under the relevant service rules. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of deeming provisions in service rules and ensures that employees are not denied their rightful benefits due to technicalities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, ruling that the Respondents, who were initially contract employees but later declared government servants, were entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive all associated benefits. The Court emphasized that once employees are declared government servants, they cannot be denied the benefits of regular service. This judgment ensures that employees are not deprived of their rightful benefits, and it sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Category
Parent category: Service Law
Child categories:
- Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990
- Departmental Candidates
- Contract Employees
- Regular Service
- Promotions
Parent category: Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990
Child categories:
- Rule 2(c), Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990
- Rule 6, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990
- Note 3 of Schedule I, Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules, 1990
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Union of India vs. E. Krishna Rao case?
A: The main issue was whether contract employees of Doordarshan, who were later declared government servants, were entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive associated benefits, including promotions.
Q: Who were the parties involved in this case?
A: The parties involved were the Union of India and other government authorities (Appellants) and E. Krishna Rao and other similarly situated employees (Respondents).
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Respondents, holding that they were entitled to be included in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service and receive all associated benefits, as they were declared government servants.
Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?
A: The key takeaways are that contract employees who are later declared government servants are entitled to the benefits of regular service, deeming provisions in service rules can include posts not explicitly mentioned, and denying benefits to government servants is unfair.
Q: What does this case mean for other contract employees who have been declared government servants?
A: This case sets a precedent that contract employees who are later declared government servants are entitled to the benefits of regular service, which includes promotions, pay scales, and other benefits.