Undertakings waiving the right to seek regularization or judicial recourse are invalid and unenforceable.

The four applicants were engaged as casual Announcers/Comperes at Akashvani Gorakhpur and Kanpur, having served for over ten years, some since 1993

Their engagement followed a 1991 Memorandum, and they sought regularization based on departmental schemes dated 26.03.1979 and 17.03.1994

On 06.08.2015, the respondents issued a circular requiring casual Announcers to sign a "declaration-cum-undertaking." This undertaking restricted them to 72 assignments per year and, significantly, required them to waive their right to approach any court or tribunal to claim permanent status or regularization

When the applicants refused to sign, the respondents ceased assigning them work

The respondents argued that the applicants, as casual announcers, were not "Artists" and thus ineligible for the 1982 or 1991 regularization schemes

1. Whether the clause in the undertaking prohibiting casual employees from seeking legal recourse or claiming regularization is legally sustainable

2. Whether Announcers are classified as "Artists" and thereby eligible for consideration under the departmental regularization schemes

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to be considered for regularization in light of the Supreme Court's directions in Director General, All India Radio v. Purushothaman C.

The Court primarily applied Chapter VII Section III of the A.I.R. Manual, which classifies Announcers and Comperes within the category of "Artisan/Artist"

The Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists dated 17.03.1994 and the Memorandum of Engagement dated 26.03.1979 established the criteria for service regularization

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, regarding the rights of long-term temporary employees to be considered for regularization

Director General, All India Radio v. Purushothaman C. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8859-8860 of 2016), which mandated the formulation of a scheme to address the regularization of casual staff in Prasar Bharti

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that Announcers are not "Artists," citing the AIR Manual which explicitly includes Announcers and Comperes in the artisan category

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants were governed by the regularization schemes of 1979 and 1994

Regarding the impugned undertaking, the Tribunal noted that the provision forcing employees to waive their right to approach a court or tribunal is "contrary to their own scheme for regularization"

The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to address the applicants' grievances for years, leading to extensive litigation, and that the Supreme Court had already intervened in Purushothaman C. to ensure a regularization scheme was formulated

By compelling an undertaking that extinguished legal rights, the respondents acted in violation of established administrative and judicial principles regarding fair treatment of long-term casual staff

The Tribunal held that such a waiver is invalid and contrary to the department's existing schemes

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants’ cases for regularization in accordance with the new schemes formulated via circulars dated 05.09.2019, 15.10.2019, and 25.11.2019, while also taking into account the earlier 1994 regularization scheme

No order as to costs was made