Facts
The applicants were working as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants at All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram, and sought regularization of their services.
Source reference: p.10Their primary grievance was that they were neither being given assignments nor regularized.
Source reference: p.10During the pendency of these Original Applications, the respondents (Union of India, Prasar Bharathi, All India Radio) framed a Scheme for the regularization of casual employees in these categories, based on directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p.10The respondents produced a copy of this scheme, issued on September 5, 2019, and an order from the Apex Court dated October 30, 2025, in Civil Appeal Nos. 8859-8860/2016.
Source reference: p.10The respondents contended that none of the applicants fell within the scope of this regularization scheme.
Source reference: p.10-11This contention was not denied by the applicants, as they did not file any rejoinder.
Source reference: p.11Issues
1. Whether the applicants, working as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants at All India Radio, are entitled to regularization of their services.
Source reference: p.102. Whether the applicants fall within the scope of the regularization scheme framed by the respondents based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p.10-11Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied the regularization scheme issued on September 5, 2019, by the respondents, which was framed based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8859-8860/2016, dated October 30, 2025, regarding the regularization of casual employees in specific categories.
Source reference: p.10Reasoning
The court noted that the applicants were seeking regularization of their services as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants at All India Radio.
Source reference: p.10A scheme for regularization of such casual employees was framed by the respondents, following Supreme Court directions, during the pendency of the applications.
Source reference: p.10The respondents specifically contended that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria of this scheme.
Source reference: p.10-11Crucially, the applicants did not deny this contention, nor did they file a rejoinder to counter the respondents' assertion.
Source reference: p.11The court, therefore, accepted the unchallenged submission of the respondents that the applicants did not fall within the scope of the regularization scheme.
Source reference: p.11Holding
The Original Applications were closed.
The Tribunal recorded the respondents' contention that the applicants did not fall within the scope of the regularization scheme.
Source reference: p.11The applicants were granted liberty to approach an appropriate forum if they were so advised.
Source reference: p.11No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.11Original Court PDF
Original Application No. 180/00573/2016 & connected matters. Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in