SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

(2.) AVERMENT has been made in the OA that the applicant who belongs to OBC category was initially appointed as Pharmacist Grade II in the Respondent Institute in the pay scale of Rs. 4500 -7000 in response to public notice dated 17.2.1999, issued for filling post of Pharmacist Grade II on regular basis. The name of the applicant was sponsored by Employment Exchange and after the process of selection was completed, he was placed at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. The applicant was issued appointment letter dated 19.8.2000 against leave vacancy for an initial period of 89 days (Annexure A -2). The period of appointment was extended from time to time and vide appointment letter dated 21.11.2001 (Annexure A -3), he was posted against a vacant post of Pharmacist Grade II on adhoc basis. The respondents also deducted GPF of applicant w.e.f. 8.3.2002 and he was granted annual increment and was enjoying all the benefits of regular employment. It is further stated in the OA that respondent No. 3 initiated process of regularization of services of the applicant as his initial appointment was made by following due process of selection and there were 6 posts of Pharmacists Grade II lying vacant and the matter was already pending consideration before the DPC. Therefore, when respondents initiated action to fill post of Pharmacists Grade II in 2004, the applicant did not apply. Later vide notice dated 22.5.2007, respondent no. 2 decided to fill two vacant posts of Pharmacist Grade II on regular basis one of which was reserved for OBC category. When the respondents did not consider claim of the applicant for regularization of his services and he made representation dated 19.8.2008 in this regard, apprehending termination of his services, the applicant filed CWP No. 18326 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and after hearing the counsel for the applicant notice of motion was issued and the termination of services of the applicant was stayed.

(3.) THE applicant then filed OA No. 719/CH/2010 challenging his termination and vide order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure A -7), prayer of the applicant for quashing his termination order was dismissed but it was observed in the order that since claim of the applicant for regularization of his services was pending consideration with the respondents, grant of consideration of regularization had been left open to exclusive discretion of the competent authority. Since no time frame was stipulated for consideration of the claim of the applicant, he filed Review Application 5/2012 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 28.5.2012, directing the respondent to consider claim of the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order (Annexure A -8). Since the respondents failed to consider claim of the applicant, he filed M.A. No. 1110/2012 for execution of order dated 28.5.2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.3.2013 (Annexure A -9), directing the respondents to make copy of the relevant consideration available to the applicant within 15 days. Without passing any final order regarding claim of the applicant, respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 16.4.2013 supplied the applicant alleged consideration in the shape of impugned file noting on the basis of which claim of the applicant seeking regularization against post of Pharmacist Grade II was rejected by the respondents.