Promotional Post Without Direct Recruitment No Ground To Deny Higher Pay Band To Doordarshan Cameramen: Kerala High Court - 2025-03-25

Kerala High Court Restores Higher Pay Band for Doordarshan Cameramen, Quashes Recovery Orders

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling for employees of Prasar Bharati, the Kerala High Court has quashed orders that withdrew a higher pay scale (Pay Band-3) from Doordarshan cameramen. A Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that the benefit, originally granted in 2012, could not be retrospectively withdrawn on the ground that Cameraman Grade-I is a promotional post without a direct recruitment channel.

The court restored the 2012 order, providing relief to several retired and serving cameramen of Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram, and set aside the recovery proceedings initiated against them.

Background of the Pay Scale Dispute

The case originated from petitions filed by M. Mirza Ismail and other Cameraman Grade-II employees of Doordarshan. Following the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations and the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme, the Directorate General of Doordarshan issued an order on January 12, 2012 (Annexure A3). This order clarified that Cameraman Grade-I, and Cameraman Grade-II who received financial upgradation under the ACP scheme, were entitled to be placed in Pay Band-3 (₹15600-39100) with a Grade Pay of ₹5400.

However, in 2016, Prasar Bharati issued new orders (Annexures A5 and A6) withdrawing this benefit with retrospective effect. The rationale provided was that the post of Cameraman Grade-I was a 100% promotional post and not a direct recruitment entry grade for Group-A services. Consequently, they were to be placed in the lower Pay Band-2 (₹9300-34800), and directions were issued to recover the alleged overpayments.

The affected employees challenged this withdrawal at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, which dismissed their applications. This led to the present petitions before the Kerala High Court.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court found the reasoning for the withdrawal of benefits to be flawed. The bench noted that the 2016 withdrawal order was based on a flawed premise that differentiated between direct recruits and promotees for the same pay scale.

The court observed, "The order Annexure A6 has been passed on the premise that there is a direct recruitment entry whereas there is no direct recruitment entry and Grade I post is promotional. This aspect has been already pondered by various benches of the tribunal and upheld by the honourable Supreme Court."

The petitioners' counsel highlighted that identical withdrawal orders had been challenged and set aside by other High Courts, including the Delhi High Court, and these decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court took judicial notice of these precedents, pointing out that the CAT, Ernakulam Bench had failed to consider them while dismissing the original applications.

The court quoted from the impugned 2016 order to underscore the flawed logic:

"The post which were promotional posts were put in PB-2 with Grade Pay Rs 5400 and those posts which direct recruitment entry grade for Group-A were put in PB-3 with Grade pay of Rs. 5400."

The High Court found this distinction untenable, especially since the Cameraman Grade-I post is exclusively promotional. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kamlakar and Others v. Union of India , which held that there cannot be differential treatment between direct recruits and promotees, the court concluded that the withdrawal was arbitrary.

Final Verdict and Implications

Allowing the petitions, the High Court set aside the CAT's order. It quashed the 2016 orders (Annexures A5 and A6) that had withdrawn the financial benefits and also quashed the subsequent recovery notice (Annexure A10) issued to one of the petitioners.

The court directed the restoration of the original 2012 order (Annexure A3), which placed the cameramen in Pay Band-3. The judgment explicitly stated, "This benefit is only applicable to the petitioners and not to the members of the Association." The court also noted that the Director General of Doordarshan had already begun implementing similar court orders for other employees, reinforcing the correctness of the petitioners' claim.