Facts
The Applicants (a retired Cameraman and an association of retired Doordarshan professionals) filed this Original Application (OA) on 30.12.2024
Source reference: p. 2They sought the extension of benefits previously granted by the CAT Bangalore Bench and the High Court of Karnataka to similarly situated Cameramen Grade-I and TV News Correspondents regarding induction into the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service (IB(P)S) and subsequent promotions
Source reference: p. 2-3The Applicants specifically challenged a speaking order dated 18.03.2024, which they sought to modify to include their grievances
Source reference: p. 3The Respondents contested the claim, arguing that the Applicants are long-retired and that the legal validity of the benefits they seek is currently sub-judice before the High Court of Karnataka
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the extension of service and financial benefits based on judgments favoring Cameraman Grade-I and News Correspondents in other benches
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the OA can be adjudicated while the underlying legal challenge to the speaking order dated 18.03.2024 is pending before the High Court of Karnataka
Source reference: p. 6-7Law Applied
The court considered the principles of judicial finality and the impact of sub-judice matters on parallel proceedings.
Source reference: no citationReference to precedent set by the CAT Bangalore Bench in OA No. 170/01456/2018 and OA No. 229/2024 regarding the promotion and induction of Cameramen into the IB(P)S hierarchy
Source reference: p. 4-5Stay/deferment of contempt proceedings by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 27213/2025, which challenged the quashing of the department's speaking order dated 18.03.2024
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the primary basis for the Applicants' claim—the set of benefits derived from the Bangalore Bench orders—is currently under intense litigation. Specifically, the speaking order dated 18.03.2024 (which the Applicants sought to modify) was already quashed by the Bangalore Bench in OA No. 229/2024
Source reference: p. 5the High Court of Karnataka has stayed/adjudicated upon these developments in W.P. No. 27213/2025 and W.P. No. 35801/2025, accepting them for final adjudication
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal reasoned that since the Applicants in the present case are retired, whereas the litigants in the pending Karnataka cases are still in service, the determination of whether such benefits can be extended retrospectively to retired employees can only be decided after the High Court of Karnataka reaches a final decision on the core service matter. Proceeding at this stage would be premature.
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Tribunal held that the OA is infructuous at this stage due to the pending litigation before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
The OA and any pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of with no order as to costs, effectively allowing the Applicants to wait for the finality of the proceedings in the Karnataka High Court before pursuing further adjudication
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
DILIP KUMAR RAYvsDOORDARSHAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in