AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.3.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench whereby it has allowed respondent''s OA No.040/00341/2015 directing the petitioners to regularize his services with all
consequential benefits.
There is admittedly a permanent sanctioned post of Pharmacist in the Postal Dispensary at Dibrugarh. And in the year, 2009, it was lying vacant.
Petitioner No.3, vide Memo dated 13.8.2009, made a request to the District Employment Exchange Officer to sponsor names for recruitment of
Pharmacist in the Postal Department on daily wage basis for 180 days. The Employment Exchange Office responded to the request and sponsored
number of names including the name of Respondent. The petitioners then selected and appointed the respondent vide order dated 8.4.2011 for a
period of 3 months on daily wage basis. After appointment, the respondent joined as Pharmacist on 2.5.2011. Although the appointment of
respondent was only for 3 months, the same was continued without any break by different orders from time to time right upto February, 2005. The
respondent also discharged his duties as Pharmacist without any complaint whatsoever. The respondent was however denied wages without any
reason with effect from 1.2.2015. He, therefore, made a representation dated 27.7.2015 to the petitioners. Petitioner No.6 also apprised vide
Memo dated 10.6.2015 to Petitioner No.3 that the respondent is working against a sanctioned post of Pharmacist and that the work of Pharmacist
which is specialized in nature cannot be handled by any other officials nor it can be managed on temporary arrangement. In the memo, petitioner
No.6 strongly recommended that the services of respondent be allowed to continue and he be paid his wages. But, in reply, petitioner No.4 vide
memo dated 13.7.2015, informed Petitioner No.6 to follow Director''s letter dated 7.10.2005 wherein it is stated ""whenever any post other than
CMO/MO is vacant, the work may be managed by recombination of duties till the time new norms are finalized"". Against this reply, Petitioner
No.6 informed Petitioner No.4 that the work of Pharmacist is impossible to manage by recombination of duties as nobody is competent to give
injections like Tetanus Toxoid and perform other expertise duties of a Pharmacist. Sadly, despite recommendation by Petitioner No.6 no positive
response came in favour of the respondent. Therefore, left with no option, the respondent filed OA No.040/00341/2015 before the Tribunal which
having regard to the fact that he has been continuously working as Pharmacist with the petitioners for more than 5 years against a sanctioned post
has directed for his regularization with all consequential benefits. It is against this direction, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
Admittedly, the respondent was appointed by the petitioners after due selection. The appointment of respondent was also against a sanctioned
vacant post. There is no denial by the petitioners that the services of respondent have been upto their satisfaction. The respondent has continuously
worked with the petitioners for more than 5 years and has given his prime to them. As seen above, the work of Pharmacist requires expertise and
cannot be managed by recombination of duties. Also a qualified Pharmacist alone can discharge the functions of Pharmacist. The health and lives of
sick persons coming for treatment cannot be permitted to put to risk by recombination of duties of staff not qualified as Pharmacist. In the fact
situation of the case, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to act as a model employer by regularizing
the services of respondent with all consequential benefits. We, accordingly, find no merit in the petition and dismiss it with cost of Rs.1000/-
payable to the respondent.