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.10, para. 1During the pendency of these Original Applications, the respondents (Union of India, Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India, Director General All India Radio, and various Station Directors) framed a scheme for the regularization of casual employees in these categories, based on directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Source reference: p.10, para. 2The respondents contended that none of the applicants fell within the scope of this regularization scheme
Source reference: p.10, para. 2This contention was not denied by the applicants, and they did not file any rejoinder
Source reference: p.10, para. 2Issues
Whether the applicants, working as Casual Announcers/Comperes/Production Assistants at All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram, are entitled to regularization of their services
Source reference: p.10, para. 1Whether the applicants fall within the scope of the regularization scheme framed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Source reference: p.10, para. 2Law Applied
The court applied the principle that a regularization scheme framed on the directions of a higher court (Hon'ble Supreme Court) should govern the regularization of casual employees
Source reference: p.10, para. 2Specifically, the "Scheme with regard to the regularisation of casual employees working in the above categories" issued on 05.09.2019, and the order of the Apex Court dated 30.10.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8859-8860/2016, which mandated the framing of such a scheme, were central to the decision
Source reference: p.10, para. 2Reasoning
The court noted that the applicants were seeking regularization of their services
Source reference: p.10, para. 1It was established that a regularization scheme had been framed by the respondents in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directives
Source reference: p.10, para. 2The respondents explicitly stated that the applicants did not meet the criteria of this scheme, a fact that the applicants did not dispute or rebut with any rejoinder
Source reference: p.10, para. 2Therefore, the court could not grant regularization outside the ambit of the established scheme, especially when the applicants themselves implicitly accepted their non-eligibility by not refuting the respondents' contention
Source reference: p.11, para. 3Holding
The Original Applications were closed, with the court recording the respondents' contention that the applicants do not fall within the scope of the regularization scheme
The applicants were granted liberty to approach an appropriate forum if they were so advised
Source reference: p.11, para. 3No costs were awarded
Source reference: p.11, para. 3Original Court PDF
Original Application No. 180/00573/2016, Original Application No. 180/00921/2015, Original Application No. 180/00178/2017 & Original Application No. 180/00610/2015
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in