M.Chandrika v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/625/2023 M. Chandrika Vs.

Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents December 14, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 At the outset, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents raised the point of maintainability. He argued that this writ application was not maintainable before this Court but before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, leaned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed the order of the Supreme Court made on 5th April, 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.44/2023 ( M Chandrika vs. Union of India and others), relating to this matter which is set out hereunder:- "1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. However, if the petitioner so desires, she may approach the jurisdictional High Court. In which event, the Court will consider the grievance of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

3. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

There is a twin direction giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court and the High Court to consider her grievance.

We have to entertain this writ application.

The grievance of the petitioner is clear and simple. From or about April 2000 by virtue of an order No.1768 issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the writ petitioner was promoted from B.Pharm (Tutor) to the Group 'B' Gazetted post of Chief Pharmacist in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 on adhoc basis for a period of six months with immediate effect. It was made clear in the order that the appointment was purely on an adhoc basis till the post was filled up by regular appointment in consultation with UPSC and on obtaining its clearance.

I do not know what consultation, if at all, took place but from 2000 to till 30th September, 2017 when the petitioner retired, this adhoc appointment was extended by an order dated 14th February, 2001.

The clearance from UPSC never came.

The writ petitioner has retired. The effect of this is that the petitioner has discharged her duties of Chief Pharmacist but was paid till her retirement in the scale of pay of B.Pharm (Tutor) and is also receiving pension accordingly. The petitioner has continuously discharged her duties of the Chief Pharmacist from 2000 till 2017. There was no complaint against her. In fact her performance seems to have been very satisfactory because this adhoc extension was never revoked.

A decision taken by the Administration and the UPSC in consultation with each other was much required. Since this decision was not taken timely, I direct the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to immediately consult

the UPSC and concurrently direct the UPSC to enter into consultation with the Administration within four weeks of communication of this order so as to provide expost facto approval to the appointment of the petitioner within two months of communication of this order. If no clearance is obtained clearance shall be deemed have been made on expiry of two months.

This approval is mandatory because the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted satisfactory service for 17 years before retirement on the adhoc appointment.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar further submits that there has been a revision in the scale of pay in the posts of B.Pharm (Tutor) and Chief Pharmacist. In that view of the matter, the respondent no. 3 shall appoint the writ petitioner as Chief Pharmacist with effect from 1st August, 2001, effect revision of the scale of pay of the petitioner, make payment of the arrear salary on such revision, release pension and other retiral benefits payable to her within eight weeks of receiving clearance from UPSC.

This writ application is accordingly disposed of. ( I.P.Mukerji, J.)