DIR.GEN.,PRASAR BHARATI . vs DILIP ROY . — C.A. No. 1458 - 1459/2010

Case under Section XVI. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010316192008

Filing Date

03-Nov-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 1458 - 1459/2010

Diary Number

31619/2008

Order Date

12-Feb-2014

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIR.GEN.,PRASAR BHARATI .

    Adv. RAJEEV SHARMA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DILIP ROY .

    Adv. VISHAL ARUN DHARITRY PHOOKAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 29-Jan-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 23-Jan-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 28-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 26-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 03-May-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 11-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 12-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 12-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 09-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 10-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 07-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 17-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 18-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 03-Nov-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 1458 - 1459/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed Prasar Bharati's appeals and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's 2005 order directing absorption of 12 casual Production Assistants (including Dilip Roy) who had worked at Doordarshan Kolkata since 1992. Though the respondents did not meet the policy requirement of 120 days engagement before 31.12.1991, the court found the Tribunal's direction justified given their long service and available vacancies. The court directed absorption effective 26.6.2007 without back-wages, with orders to be passed within eight weeks, clarifying this exceptional relief applies only to the peculiar facts of this case and does not obligate deviation from policy in other matters. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case