Central Administrative Tribunal
saif ud din lone and others vs DOORDARSHAN on 28 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 7
O.A./1179/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ REGULARISATION ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 1
Order Dated: 28/10/2026
SAIF UD DIN LONE AND OTHERS
Vs
DOORDARSHAN
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. R A JAN, SR. COUNSEL ALONG WITH MR. WAHID
LONE
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. S N RATANPURI THROUGH VC
Order of The Tribunal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed M.A. No. 1433/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said M.A. is allowed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the present Original Application has been filed challenging Communication No. F.No. A-10/013(7)2022-PBRB/IARS dated 24.09.2026, issued by respondent No. 5 with the approval of respondent No. 2, whereby the applicants’ request for regularization of their services under the Scheme/Policy for Regularization has been declined. It is submitted that the applicants have been continuously serving as Casual Production Executives/Production Assistants (Group-B posts) in the Regional News Unit of Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar, for more than three decades, including during the difficult conditions prevailing in the region, and that their claims have not been considered in the light of the applicable policy and the relevant judicial pronouncements.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned communication fails to take into consideration the Scheme/Policy for Regularization manifested in O.M. No. 49014/3/2014/Estt. (C) dated 16.10.2014, read with Circular No. 03/04/2019-LC dated 05.09.2019. It is contended that the applicants’ claims also require consideration in the light of the judgment dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, particularly paragraph 35 thereof, and the subsequent judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2813/2022, titled Saif ud Din Lone & Others v. Union of India & Others. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning regularization of services, including Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247. The applicants allege that the impugned decision is arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly in view of the treatment stated to have been extended to similarly situated casual workers, and seek appropriate directions for consideration of their claims in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, learned counsel appearing through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply/objections.
7. Accordingly, four weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy thereof to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicants.
8. Meanwhile, the status and position of the applicants as existing today shall not be disturbed or altered to their prejudice, subject to the rights of the applicants and further orders of this Tribunal.
9. Alteration/modification on motion.
10. List on 28.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )