Disposed¶16

Manoj Verma v. Sansad Television and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2410/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sansad Television regularisation; Rajya Sabha Secretariat; Committee consideration; sealed cover recommendations to Governing Council; similarly situated employees; writ petition disposed with directions; liberty to approach Court; prayers (b) and (c); W.P.(C) 2410/2026; CM APPL. 11793-11794/2026; Delhi High Court; Sanjeev Narula; related: W.P.(C) 8590/2025 Ashutosh Dixit; W.P.(C) 6214/2025 Anna Gupta; W.P.(C) 8732/2025 Rakesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction that the Petitioners' case be considered in accordance with law in light of the earlier decisions; all rights and contentions kept open; liberty to approach the Court if grievances are not redressed and to raise prayers (b) and (c) subject to the Governing Council's decision. ¶16

Manoj Verma Vs Sansad Television and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners — employees of Sansad Television (Respondent No. 1) who were not parties to the earlier writ petitions seeking regularisation — should have their cases considered in accordance with law in light of the earlier orders (via the Committee/Governing Council process), and how their remaining claims (prayers (b) and (c)) are to be pursued.

¶14

Court's answer

The present petition is disposed of with a direction that the case of the Petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law, in light of the decisions referred to above (the orders in Ashutosh Dixit, Anna Gupta and Rakesh Kumar).

¶15

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, and in the event the Petitioners' grievances are not redressed, they shall be at liberty to approach the Court in accordance with law.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Petitioners are at liberty to raise their other claims, namely prayers (b) and (c), subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Governing Council.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), order dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 2410/2026 (Manoj Verma v. Sansad Television & Ors.): Petitioners, stated to be working with Sansad Television (R-1), sought regularisation relying on directions in earlier writ petitions — Ashutosh Dixit (W.P.(C) 8590/2025, order dt. 14.07.2025), which relied on coordinate Bench orders in Anna Gupta (W.P.(C) 6214/2025, dt. 09.05.2025) and Rakesh Kumar (W.P.(C) 8732/2025, dt. 01.07.2025) under which a Committee was to consider such cases. Counsel for R-1 & R-3 submitted that, though not parties to those petitions, the present Petitioners were considered by the Committee, heard, and that its recommendations had been submitted in sealed cover to the Governing Council of R-1. The Court disposed of the petition, directing that the Petitioners' case be considered in accordance with law in light of the said decisions; rights and contentions kept open; liberty to approach the Court if grievances are not redressed, and to press prayers (b) and (c) subject to the Governing Council's decision.

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2410/2026, CM APPL. 11793-11794/2026

¶4

MANOJ VERMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kshitiz Mudgal, Mr. Amit Jay Singh and Mr. Ansh Mittal, Advocates.

¶6

versus SANSAD TELEVISION AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan and Mr. Abhimanyu, Advocates for R-1, 3. Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Ishita Pandey and Ms. Yogita, Advocates for R-2.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 20.02.2026 1. The three Petitioners, who state that they are working with Sansad Television (Respondent No. 1), rely upon directions issued by this Court in writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons seeking regularisation of their services with Respondent No. 1.

¶10

W.P.(C) 8590/2025, titled Ashutosh Dixit & Ors. v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat through its Secretary General & Ors. , was disposed of by order dated 14^th July, 2025, taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents that a Committee would be constituted to examine the cases of the Petitioners therein, disposed of the petition. The said order placed reliance on earlier orders passed by coordinate Benches in W.P.(C) 6214/2025 titled Anna Gupta & Anr. v. Sansad Television & Ors. dated

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 11:51:30

¶13

09^th May, 2025 and W.P.(C) 8732/2025 titled Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. Sansad Television & Ors. dated 01^st July, 2025, which dealt with similarly situated persons engaged with the Respondents.

¶14

In essence, the cases of the Petitioners in the aforesaid matters were directed to be considered by the Committee constituted for that purpose. 4. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, submits that although the present Petitioners were not parties to the aforesaid petitions, he has instructions to state that their cases have also been duly considered by the Committee. The Petitioners have been granted an opportunity of hearing, a fact which is not disputed by the Petitioners. The Court is also informed that the Committee has concluded the hearings and has submitted its recommendations, in a sealed cover, to the Governing Council of Respondent No. 1 for taking a final decision.

¶15

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the case of the Petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law, in light of the decisions referred to above. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. In the event the Petitioners’ grievances are not redressed, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court in accordance with law. The Petitioners shall also be at liberty to raise other claims, namely prayers (b) and (c), subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Governing Council.

¶16

The petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶17

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 20, 2026/ nk

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/02/2026 at 11:51:30

Manoj Verma v. Sansad Television and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Verma v. Sansad Television and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chander Chug Vs Sub Registrar Office II B

Gauri Kansal Minor through Father Anil Kansal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Smt. Mamta Bajaj Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Banarsi Devi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aksheev Agarwal & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bankar Hukum Natha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bhoomi Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ashish Garg Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India Nmpai and Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dr. Manu Banga Vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women

Dr Manu Banga Vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women & Anr.

Anil Vs the Chairman Ssc Nr & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Institute of Economic Growth & Anr.

Prince Kumar Vs Delhi Technological University and Ors.