Central Administrative Tribunal
Rajeev Kumar Sahu vs DOORDARSHAN on 16 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00087/2023
This the 16th day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-A
Rajeev Kumar Sahu, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shiv Prasad Sahu, R/o 42 Shiva Bhawan, Jai Narain Road, Hussainganj, Lucknow.
….Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Amit Verma.
Shri A.P. Sen.
VERSUS.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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. UNION OF INDIA through Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi through Director General.
3. Director, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan, Lucknow.
4. Assistant Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow. ….Respondents. By Advocate:- Smt. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this OA the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a). to quash/set-aside the order dated 25.02.2022, contained in Annexure no.1, passed by the respondent no.4, with the approval of respondent no.2, with all consequential benefits.
(b) . to issue order/direction/command to the respondents particularly respondent no.2 to consider and regularize the services of the applicant on the post of Production Assistant from the due date in view of office memorandum dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994 or atleast from the date of his immediate junior (Atul Misra w.e.f. 03.10.1994) was considered and regularized and accord all consequential benefits viz. seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of pay and promote him on the post of Programme
Executive with effect from the date his juniors were considered and promoted on the said post with all consequential benefits. OR To issue order/direction/command to the respondents particularly respondent no.2 to consider and regularize the services of the applicant on the post of Production Assistant from the date of his Juniors (as mentioned in Para 4.10 of this Original Application) were considered and regularized in view of office memorandum dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994 and accord all consequential benefits viz. seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of pay and promote him on the post of Programme Executive with effect from the date his juniors were considered and promoted on the said post with all consequential benefits.
(c) . issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d) . allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and Grounds raised in the Application."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the lis involved in this case has already been decided by this Tribunal in O.A.No.88/2019 (Nikhat Parveen Ghauri vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India & Others) on 08.05.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that order dated 08.05.2019 passed in O.A.No.88/2019 has already been complied with by the respondents vide its order dated 03.11.2025, which is annexed as Annexure No.SA-3, page-36 to the rejoinder affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that applicant would be happy and satisfied if respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the applicant’s case in terms of the judgment passed by this Tribunal dated 08.05.2019 passed in O.A.No.88/2019 – Nikhat Parveen Ghauri vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India & Others within a stipulated period of time.
4. The copy of the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.88/2019 – Nikhat Parveen Ghauri vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India & Others dated 08.05.2019 has been filed by applicant, which is annexed at (Annexure-1) of M.A.No.287/2026.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions, however, urged that if Tribunal directs the respondent/competent authority to decide the case of the applicant in the manner suggested then sufficient time may be given.
6. Keeping in view of the innocuous prayer of the applicant, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the case of applicant in the light of order dated 08.05.2019 passed in O.A.No.88/2019 – Nikhat Parveen Ghauri vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India & Others by this Bench of the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by way of reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant forthwith.
7. For avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that respondents/competent authority shall determine the applicability of the judgment dated 08.05.2019 passed in O.A.No.88/2019 – Nikhat Parveen Ghauri vs. Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India & Others to the present case. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
There is no order as to costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)
Member (J)
Ak/-
Amit Kumar