High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15-04-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUWRIT PETITION Nos.7200, 7201, 7653 & 7654 OF 1999andWMP.NO.10971 OF 1999W.P.No.7200 of 19991. S. Somachari2. L. Geetha.. PetitionersVs.1. The Union of India, rep. by its Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 104... RespondentsW.P.No.7201 of 1999S. Somachari.. PetitionersVs.1. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.2. The Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 104.4 P. Ramasamy5. K. Rajaram6. K. Balachandar7. M. Murugesan8. S. Pathi Usman9. K. Kuppusamy10. M. Selvamani11. R. Surendran12. P. Radhakrishnan13. M.S. Dhanapalan14. S. Harikrishnan15. C.B. Rajendran16. P. Gurusamy17. C.R. Glignan.. RespondentsW.P.No.7653 of 1999S. WilsonS/o.P.K. Sengodan.. PetitionersVs.1. The Union of India, rep. by its Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai Bench, Chennai 104. .. RespondentsW.P.No.7654 of 1999S. WilsonS/o. P.K. Sengodan.. PetitionerVs.1. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health,Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai 104... RespondentsPetitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forthe issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsof the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.NOs.226 of 1996, 58 of1997, 440 and 1227 of 1996 respectively dated 19.2.1999 and direct the1st respondent to continue the petitioners as Pharmacists in charge ofStores (Store-Keeper).For Petitioners: Mr. Karthik Raja for Mr.R. ParthbanFor Respondent-1in WP.No.7200/99: Mr.V. Yuvakumar, ACGSCFor Respondents 1&2 in WP.Nos.7201 &: Mr.K. Ethirajulu, ACGSC 7654 of 1999 For Respondent-1 : Mr.P. Wilsonin WP.No.7653/1999 Addl. Solicitor GeneralCOMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JThese writ petitions have been filed against the common orderof dismissal dated 19.2.1999, passed by the Central AdministrativeTribunal in the Original Applications and to direct the Union of Indiato continue the petitioners as Pharmacists in charge of Stores (Store-keeper).2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are asfollows :-2.1 The petitioners were appointed as Store-keepers under the Unionof India in connection with Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). Atthat time, the post of Store-Keeper formed a separate cadre and the postof Pharmacist formed a different cadre. The qualification for the postof Store-keeper is as follows :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i) B. Pharm or B.Sc., with one year experience of doingstore accounting or pharmacy workii) D. Pharm, with 5 years experience can be considered ifcandidates with qualifications at (i) above are not available.2.2 It is also stated that for the post of Pharmacist,qualification required was only Diploma in Pharmacy. However, inspiteof the fact that Store-keepers were apparently required to possesshigher qualification, the scale of pay for Pharmacists was fixed atRs.1350 - 2200, whereas the scale of pay of the Store-keeper wasinitially fixed at Rs.1200 - 2040. On the basis of number ofrepresentations, the matter was considered by the anomalies Committee,which recommended that the Store-keeper may be kept in the scale ofRs.1400-2300. However, the Government eventually fixed the scale of payof the Store-keeper at Rs.1350-2200 on par with the Pharmacists by anorder dated 20.6.1988. 2.3 Even before the issuance of such order, the Government by itsearlier order dated 9.6.1988 had decided to redesignate the post ofStore-keeper as Pharmacist so that the Store-keeper would be allowed todraw the same scale as Pharmacist. Thus, while redesignating the postand merging two services, no guidelines had been issued for determiningthe seniority. 2.4 On 31.5.1989, a seniority list was prepared, wherein the formerStore-keepers were placed in the same seniority list along with thePharmacists by counting their seniority from their inception. In otherwords, the Store-keepers were not given any higher seniority althoughtheir educational qualification was required to be higher. It wascontended that keeping in view the educational qualification and thenature of job, the Store-keepers should have been shown as seniors.Accordingly, number of representations were made. The petitioner inWP.No.7201 of 1999 had made such representation on 21.10.1991 and areply was received from the Deputy Director on 7.1.1992 stating that thematter was referred to the Director, CGHS, and a decision would betaken. 2.5 Subsequently, by proceedings dated 11.7.1995, it was decided tocreate a promotional avenue for Pharmacists by upgrading 25% of theposts of Pharmacists as Senior Pharmacists in the scale of Rs.1600 -2660 and such promotion would be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. On 4.8.1995, the petitioners had made representation regardingquestion of seniority. However, by order dated 2.1.1996, 15 personswere promoted as Senior Pharmacists by considering the seniority on thebasis of the date of appointment either as a Pharmacist or Store-keeper. 2.6 At that stage, the respondents decided to post four persons incharge of the stores and accordingly the petitioners were directed tohandover charge to them. The petitioners filed O.A.No.226, 422, 440 and1227 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashingsuch order dated 12.2.1996 and to direct the respondents to continue thepetitioners as Store-keeper in charge of stores. By virtue of the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of status quo, the petitioners continued to function as Pharmacists incharge of the stores. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.7201 of 1999filed O.A.No.58 of 1997 challenging the seniority list dated 22.5.1989.All the O.As were taken up together and the Original Applications weredismissed by an order dated 19.2.1999 mainly on the ground of delay inapproaching the Tribunal. Such decision of the Tribunal is in questionin the present writ petitions.3. The main contention in the writ petitions is to the effectthat since the Store-keepers were required to possess higher educationalqualification, they should have been placed as senior en bloc over thePharmacists. In the alternative it is submitted that at any rateweightage of five years should have been given for the purpose ofseniority.4. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties andgone through the materials on record, we are unable to accept thesubmission made on behalf of the petitioners for several reasons.5. Firstly, as apparent, the seniority list had been preparedas way back in May, 1989. Law is well settled that in the mattersrelating to seniority, an aggrieved party is expected to come to theCourt as expeditiously as possible without avoidable delay and thematters which are remained settled for a long period should not beallowed to unsettle after a long lapse of time. 5.1 In the present case, the petitioners approached the Tribunalfor the first time by filing Original Applications in 1996 or 1997,after about 7 to 8 years. Learned counsels for the petitionerssubmitted that representations have been made and they have been waitingfor the reply from the Government. In such matters, merely by making arepresentation, an aggrieved employee cannot wait quietly for a longperiod. If no reply was received within a reasonable period, saysix months or one year, obviously the person has to approach the Courtto ventilate his grievance.5.2. The Supreme Court, further, in the judgment relating to theState of Tamil Nadu v. Seschalam (2007 aAIR SCW 7750) held that lawleans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Speaking for theBench, S.B. Sinha, J. in paragraph 11 had observed as follows :-“11. Some of the respondents might have filedrepresentations but filing of representations alone would notsave the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevantfactor for a court of law to determine the question as towhether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration.Delay and / or laches on the part of a Government servant maydeprive him of the benefit which had been given to others.Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in asituation of that nature, be attracted as it is well knownthat law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Apart from the above, when two separate cadres were mergedtogether, the question as to how their seniority should be counted is amatter of policy decision of the Government. Such merger had takenplace long back and it appears that no grievance had been made. It maybe true that the educational qualification required for a Store-keeperwas somewhat higher as compared to that of a Pharmacist. This again isa matter for the Government to consider and the courts of law are notexpected to delve into such matters, particularly after a long lapse oftime.7. Apart from the above two hurdles, there is still a greaterhurdle for the petitioners to succeed. Even though the petitioners areclaiming seniority over other Pharmacists, except in W.P.No.7201 of1999, such persons, who are likely to be affected, are not impleaded asparties. In their absence in some of the writ petitions, no effectiverelief can be granted.8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit inthese writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardpkTo1. The Additional Director, The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.2. The Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Secretary to Government The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.1 cc To Mr.R.Parthiban, Advocate, SR.21255,WP.NOs.7200, 7201, 7653 & 7654/99 SKD(CO)RVL 23.04.2008