Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt.

Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

OA 3233/2011

New Delhi this the 24th day of April, 2012

HON BLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)

HON BLE DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A)

1. Pharmacy Graduates Welfare Association,

Through its General Secretary,
Mr. Ramesh Kumar,
C-7/28, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053.

2. Mr. Mohd. Noor Alam,

S/o Mohd. Mobarak,
E.11/65, New Colony,
Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017. Applicants.

(By Advocate Shri Sagar Saxena)

Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

2. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Through its Principal Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
A-wing, 9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

3. Administrative Reforms Department

Through its Principal Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
C-Wing, 7th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. Respondents.

(By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 1

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

O R D E R (ORAL)

Shri G. George Paracken:

The first applicant in this case is the Pharmacy Graduates Welfare Association and the second
applicant is Mr. Mohd. Noor Alam, who is one of the aggrieved persons belonging to the said
Association. Their grievance is that even after some of them have put in nearly 35 years of service,
they have not been given any promotion as there are no cadre structuring and promotional avenues.

2. The applicants have cited the cases of Pharmacists working in All India Institute of Medical
Sciences where there is a four tier promotional system and the Medical and Health Services, Govt. of
U.P. having a more number of promotional avenues. The learned counsel for the applicants has also
submitted that according to the information available to him, there are 942 Pharmacists working in
various hospitals of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi without any promotional avenues due to lack of well
defined cadre structuring but other Para-Medical staffs like Nurses, Lab. Assistants, Radiographers
and Dieticians etc. working in various hospitals in Govt. of NCT of Delhi have their own well defined
cadre structure and they get their promotions periodically. The learned counsel has given a
comparative statement indicating their promotional prospects in the following table:

S.No. POSTS PAY SCALES

1. Pharmacist (30% of total strength) 1640-2900
2. Sr. Pharmacist (after 5 years of experience as Pharmacist) (30% of total strength)
3. Chief Pharmacist (after 7 years of experience (30% of total strength) 2200-4000
10% of total strength should be in Sr. Group `A Gazetted post.

4. Pharmacy Officer (after 10 years of experience) 3000-4500

5. Asstt. Director (Pharmacy) 3700-5000
6. Dy. Director (Pharmacy) 4500-5700
7. Director (Pharmacy) Equivalent to Director of Medical Education

Category Pharmacist Nursing Cadre Lab. Staff Radiographers Dieticians

Qualification for the post as per RRs B. Pharma i.e. 4 years Technical Degree Course 3 years

Posts (Initial) Pharmacist Pay: PB-I (5200-20200 plus GP-2800) Staff Nurse Pay: PB-II
(9300-34800 plus GP-4600) Lab. Asstt Pay: PB-I (5200-20200 plus GP-2400) Jr. Radiographer
Pay: PB-I (5200-20200 plus GP-2400) Asstt. Dietician Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4200)
Posts on promotion No promotion Nursing Sister Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4800) Lab. Tech
Pay: PB-I (5200-20200 plus GP-2800) Sr. Radiographer Pay: PB-I (5200-20200 plus GP-2800)
Dietician Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4600)

--- Asstt. Nursing Superintendent Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-5400) Tech. Asstt. (Lab) Pay:
PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4200) Tech. Asstt (Radiology) Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4200)
Sr. Dietician Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4800)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 2

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

--- Dy. Nursing Superintendent Pay: PB-III (15600-39100 plus GP-6600) Tech. Supervisor (Lab)
Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4600) Tech. Supervisor (Radiology) Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus
GP-4600) Chief Dietician Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-5400) Nursing Superintendent Pay:
PB-III (15600-39100 plus GP-7600) Jr. Technical Officer (Lab) Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus
GP-4800) Sr. Supervisor (Radiology) Pay: PB-II (9300-34800 plus GP-4800)

3. They have also relied upon the letter No. 10-8-81-PCI/5013 dated 20.09.1995 of the Pharmacy
Council of India, addressed to the Chairman, Vth Central Pay Commission, New Delhi stating that
they have approved the following promotional avenues for the cadre of Pharmacists:

POST PAY SCALES (Rs.)

1. Pharmacist 1640-2900
(30% of total strength)

2. St. Pharmacist 2000-3500

(after 5 yrs. Experience as
Pharmacist)

3. Chief Pharmacist 2200-4000

(After 7 yrs. Experience
30% of total strength)

10% of total strength should be in Sr. Group `A Gazetted Post.

4. Pharmacy Officer 3000-4500

(After 10 yrs. experience)

5. Asstt. Director (Pharmacy) 3700-5000

6. Dy. Director (Pharmacy) 4500-5700

7. Director (Pharmacy) Equivalent to Director of

Medical Education.

4. They have also submitted that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi themselves have constituted a C
. Dr. Jilie Devi, Director Health Services Chairperson/Convener;
Dr. N.R. Aggarwal, M.S., SRHC Hospital-Member
Dr. Rekha Aggarwal, Dy. M.S., Dr. BSA Hospital- Member;
Dr. Vineet Popli, Dy. M.S., AAA Hospital-Member.

The Committee has submitted its recommendations long back and the relevant part of the same is
The Committee met the representatives of Pharmacist Employees Association and the recommendati

After detailed deliberations the committee feels that absence of higher placement/promotional
avenues is an important factor in demoralizing the employees which in turn leads to disinterest and
sub optima performance. Moreover, due to these very reasons Govt. of NCT of Delhi is facing
problems in getting god quality technical staff. Hence incorporation of promotional/higher
placement avenues is a must as an employee welfare measure.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 3

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

In the opinion of the committee first twenty years of service are of paramount importance during
which sufficient incentives must be made available to keep the best brains in service and
temptations to leave are kept to a bare minimum. In this era of corporation where best talent is
being stolen from government departments on the pretext of offering of lucrative pay packages, one
must make every effort to keep the talent in position by offering maximum benefits in government
sector along with ensuring accountability as is prevalent in private/corporate sector. This applies
most to the technical staff.

Broadly the recommendations are:

03 Time bound placement in the next higher scales;

At least one promotion after completion of 24 yrs. of service;

Incentives at entry level for higher education;

In service training;

Standardization of records.

5. Further, according to them, the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training, vide Office
Memorandum dated 10.02.2011, issued instructions to all the Ministries/Departments of the
Government of India that cadre structure needs to be reviewed periodically to harmonize the
functional needs of the organization and career progression of employees as the MCPS (as was the
case with the ACPS) is only a fall back option in the event of promotions not taking place.

6. Shri Sagar Saxena has also argued that right of consideration for promotion is a fundamental
right and in the absence of a proper and well defined cadre structure, such right has no meaning and
relevance to the applicants. He has also argued that the promotion is a normal incidence of service
and there is no justification why similarly placed persons would be denied promotion. In this regard,
he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC
311). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:

Ÿ. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases
efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective.
Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why. while similarly
placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical 'A' Group
scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such
advantage, In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and,
therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the
representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of
officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and
Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within
four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 4

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

non-medical wing of the Directorate.

8. This Writ Petition is allowed and the following directions are issued :

1. Within four months from today, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union of India
shall frame a set of appropriate rules, inter alia, providing suitable promotional avenue for the 'A'
Group scientists in the non-medical wing of the establishment of Director General of Health
Services ;

2. These 'A' Group scientists shall be entitled to book allowance, higher degree allowance, risk
allowance and conveyance allowance at the same rate as is admissible to doctors in the medical wing
in the Directorate w.e.f. 1-4-1989.

3. Government shall examine the tenability of the within four months from today.

7. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan (AIR 1967 (SC) 1910) wherein it has been held that in the absence of any statutory rules
governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative
instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the
Rules already framed. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:

Ÿ. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any
statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue
administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not
found it the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that
there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior
grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in
this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be
followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government
cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by administrative instructions but if the rules are silent
on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.

8. In B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942, it was pointed out by this Court that it is
not obligatory under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution to make rules of recruitment etc.,
before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled, and secondly, the State Government
has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has
power, to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in
respect of Sch. 7, List II Entry 41. State Public Services, and there is nothing in the terms of Art. 309
of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under Art. 162 of the
Constitution without a law. A similar view was taken by this Court in T. Cajec v. U. Jormonik Siem,
l961-1 SCR 750 = (AIR 1961 SC 276) where Wanchoo. J., as he then was, who delivered judgment on
behalf of the majority, observed as follows at pp. 762-764 of the Report (SCR) = (at p. 281 of AIR) :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 5

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

"The High Court has taken the view that the appointment and succession of a Siem was not an
administrative function of the District Council and that the District Council could only act by
making a law with the assent of the Governor so far as the appointment and removal of a Siem was
concerned. In this connection, the High Court relied on para 3 (1)(g) of the Schedule, which lays
down that the District Council shall have the power to make laws with respect to the appointment
and succession of Chiefs and Headmen. The High Court seems to be of the view that until such a law
is made there could be no power of appointment of a Chief or Siem like the respondent and in
consequence there would be no power of removal either. With respect, it seems to us that the High
Court has read far more into para 3(l)(g), than is justified by its language. Paragraph 3(1) is in fact
something like a legislative list and enumerates the subjects on which the District Council is
competent to make laws. Under Para 3(1)(g) it has power to make laws with respect to the
appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to
remove them. But it does not follow from this that the appointment or removal of a Chief is a
legislative act or that no appointment or removal can be made without there being first a law to that
effect.................................Further once the power of appointment falls within the power of
administration of the district the power of removal of officers and others so appointed would
necessarily follow as a corollary. The Constitution could not have intended that all ad-ministration
in the autonomous districts should come to a stop till the Governor made regulations under para
l9(1)(b) or till the District Council passed laws under Para 3(l)(g). The Governor in the first instance
and the District Councils thereafter were vested with the power to carry on the administration and
that in our opinion included the power to appoint and remove the personnel for carrying on the
administration. Doubtless when regulations are made under Para 19(1)(b) or laws are passed under
Para 3(1) with respect to the appointment or removal of the personnel of the administration, the
administration authorities would be bound to follow the regulations so made or the laws so passed.
But from this it does not follow that till the regulations were made or the laws were passed, there
could be no appointment or dismissal of the personnel of the administration. In our opinion, the
authorities concerned would at all relevant times have the power to appoint or remove
administrative personnel under the general power of administration vested in them by the Sixth
Schedule. The view therefore taken by the High Court that there could be no appointment or
removal by the District Council without a law having been first passed in that behalf under Para
3(1)(g) cannot be sustained."

9. We pass on to consider the next contention of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that if the executive
Government is held to have power to make appointments and lay down conditions of service
without making rules in that behalf under the proviso to Art. 309, there will be a violation of Arts. 14
and 16 because the appointments would be arbitrary and capricious. In our view, there is no
substance in this contention of the petitioner. If the State of Rajasthan had considered the case of
the petitioner alongwith the other eligible candidates before appointments to the selection posts
there would be no breach of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution because everyone
who was eligible in view of the conditions of service and was entitled to consideration was actually
considered before promotion to those selection posts were actually made. It was said by Mr. C. B.
Agarwala on behalf of the respondents that an objective evaluation of the merit of the officers is
made each year and promotion is made on scrutiny of the record sheets dealing with the
competence, efficiency and experience of the officers concerned. In the present case, there is no

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 6

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

specific allegation by the petitioner in the writ petition that his case was not considered alongwith
respondents 3 and 4 at the time of promotion to the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police in
1955 or to the rank of Inspector General of Police or Additional Inspector General of Police in 1966.
There was, however, a vague suggestion made by the petitioner in paragraph 68 of his rejoinder
petition dated July 17, 1967 that "the State Government could not have possibly considered my case,
as they considered and even in this counter-affidavit consider Shri Hanuman Sharma and Shri
Sultan Singh senior to me by the new type of seniority they have invented for their benefit". Even
though there is no specific allegation by the petitioner that there was no consideration of his case,
respondent No. 1 has definitely asserted in paragraphs 23, 25, 40 and 44 of the counter-affidavit
that at the time of promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the selection posts of Deputy Inspector
General of Police and of Inspector General of Police the case of the petitioner was considered. We
are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is unable to substantiate his argument that there was
no consideration of his case at the time of promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the selection posts.
We must therefore proceed on the footing that respondent No. 1 had considered the case of the
petitioner and taken into account the record, experience and merit of the petitioner at the time of
the promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the selection grade-posts. It is therefore not possible to
accept the argument of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that there was any violation of the constitutional
guarantee under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the present case. Mr. N. C. Chatterjee argued
that the introduction of the idea of merit into the procedure of promotion brings in an element of
personal evaluation, and that personal evaluation, opens the door to the abuses of nepotism and
favouritism, and so, there was a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. We are unable to accept this argument as well founded. The question of a proper
promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which
absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority.
That means that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post
immediately below. But the trouble with the seniority system is that it is so objective that it fails to
take any account of personal merit. As a system it is fair to every official except the best ones, an
official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually become so inefficient that
disciplinary action has to be taken against him. But, though the system is fair to the officials
concerned, it is a heavy burden on the public and a great strain on the efficient handling of public
business. The problem, therefore is how to ensure reasonable prospect of advancement to all
officials and at the same time to protect the public interest in having posts filled by the most able
man? In other words, the question is how to find a correct balance between seniority and merit in a
proper promotion-policy. In this connection Leonard D. White has stated as follows :

"The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incomebents for the higher
positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organization. The main interest to be served is
the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned the public
interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified
employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the promotion
ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on
the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as
in original recruitment............Employees often prefer the rule of seniority, by which the eligible
longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion within limits, seniority is entitled to

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 7

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof;
and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most
weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees move up the
ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. When seniority is made the sole
determining factor, at any level, it is a dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest
in service in a particular grade is best suited for promotion to a higher grade; the very opposite may
be true."

(Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 4th Edn., pp. 380, 383) As a matter of long
administrative practice promotion to selection grade posts in the Indian Police Service has been
based on merit and seniority has been taken into consideration only when merit of the candidates is
otherwise equal and we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that this
procedure violates, in any way, the guarantee under Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution.

10. For the reasons expressed we hold that the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for the
grant of a writ under Art.32 of the Constitution. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana (CWP No. 11135 of 2007), decided on 07.01.2010. The petitioners
therein were working as Pharmacists in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve
Police Force. They have sought a direction to the respondents for implementation of the
recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission regarding restructuring of combatised
Pharmacist cadre and creation of promotional avenues etc. The High Court, relying upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in O.Z. Hussain (supra), passed the following directions:

From the averments made in the reply, it is clear that the 5th Pay Commission recommendations
concerning the petitioners i.e. ASI/Pharmacists have not been implemented till date, even though
steps were initiated in the year 2000. 5th Pay Commission recommendations were made applicable
in respect to the Central Government employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is more than nine years now that
the report submitted by the Cadre Review Committee to the Government of India has not been
finally considered. In the meantime, 6th Pay Commission recommendations have also been received
and implemented. It is admitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners do not have
adequate promotional avenues. Promotion is an important and relevant incidence of service. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the promotion to any employee is an
inseparable incidence of service and it brings efficiency in the service. In Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs.
Union of India, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 688, the Hon'bleSupreme Court held as under: -

Ÿ. This Court, has on more than one occasion pointed out that provision of promotion increases
efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective.
Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly
placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the nonmedical 'A' Group
scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such
advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 8

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the
representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of
officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and
Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within
four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the
non-medical wing of the Directorate. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the question of implementation of 5th Pay
Commission recommendations as indicated in para 52.90 referred to above in respect to the
Pharmacists in the light of similar benefit granted to similarly situated persons in other
organisations. Let final decision be taken within a period of four months from today. It is, however,
pertinent to mention that in case, the petitioners have already been provided the promotional
avenues in view of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, it may not be necessary for the
respondents to implement the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. In any case,
the respondents are under obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard and
communicate to the petitioners.

9. The applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal vide O.A No. 2014/2011 and the same was
disposed of vide order dated 01.06.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the
representation filed by the applicants in this regard within a period of two months. The said order
reads as under:

This OA has been filed by the Pharmacy Graduates Welfare Association through its General
Secretary and another seeking the following relief:

direct the Respondent to immediately create cadre structure for the applicants and give
promotions which is due to the applicants in accordance with the recommendation submitted by the
Pharmacy Council of India to the 5th Central Pay Commission vide its letter No. 10/8/81/PCI/5813
dated 28.09.1995 with modification as per the representation of the applicants dated 25.04.2011 .

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the Department of Health and Family
Welfare, GNCT of Delhi had already constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Jilie
Devi to look into the grievances of the Pharmacists, who had recommended as follows:

Hierarchical system does not exist in most of these cadres leading to disillusionment and
disinterest within few years of joining service. Hence, such time bound higher
placement/promotions should be given to all the paramedics. If benefits are restricted to one group
of paramedics only, this will lead to resentment and discontent among other groups in paramedics .

3. Pursuance thereto a decision had been taken in the second meeting of NAC held on 27.3.2010
wherein it was held that MACPS (as was the case with the ACPS) is a fall back option in the event of
promotions not taking place. Cadre structure needs to be reviewed periodically to harmonies the
functional needs of the organization and career progression of employees. Accordingly, all
concerned are advised to review the cadre structure in a time bound manner with a view to mitigate
problem of stagnation.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 9

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

4. Counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicant no. 1 had given representation on
25.4.2011 to the respondents giving therein all the facts to consider their grievance but no action has
been taken till date, therefore, they had no other option but to file the present OA.

5. We have heard counsel for the applicants. Since it is stated by the counsel for the applicants that
they have already given a detailed representation stating all the facts and the same has not been
decided so far, this O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of
the case by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant No.1 and decide
the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.

6. With the above direction, this O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

10. The impugned order dated 02.08.2011 has been passed by the respondents in pursuance of the
aforesaid order. According to them, the matter was re-examined in the Department and the present
status with regard to the post of Asstt. Chief Pharmacist, Pharmacist Grade-I and Chief Hospital
Pharmacist has been called from the hospitals where these posts are sanctioned. Further, the
existing Recruitment Rules of Head Pharmacist in Safdarjung Hospital have also been procured. In
the light of the aforesaid documents, they are examining the restructuring of the Pharmacist cadre
in consultation with the concerned Ministry/Department. Not satisfied by the progress made by the
respondents in the matter, the applicants have filed this O.A seeking the following reliefs:

a) quash/set aside the impugned Order No. F.1 (223)/H&FW/TRC/2008/9810-13 dated

02.08.2011, passed by the Respondent No.2;

b) direct the Respondents to immediately create cadre structure for the applicants and give
promotions which is due to the applicants in accordance with the recommendations submitted by
the Pharmacy Council of India to the 5th Central Pay Commission vide its letter No.
10/8/81/PCI/5813 dated 28.09.1995, Dr. Jille Devi Committee Report with modification as per the
representation of the applicants dated 25.04.2011;

c) pass such other or further orders as this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case;

d) award cost of the litigation to the Applicant.

11. The respondents have also filed their reply. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vijay
Pandita has submitted that since the Recruitment Rules have to be framed in these cases and the
consultation with the other Departments is necessary, the process is time consuming one and at
least one year s time is required for this purpose.

12. We have considered the matter carefully. As submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants
supported by various judgments, in the absence of clear cut cadre structure, the right of
consideration for promotion will remain only an empty principle. Therefore, it is necessary that the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 10

 Pharmacy Graduates Welfare ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2012

respondents should create a proper cadre in different grades for the Pharmacists working in various
hospitals under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. We also note that the respondents are already seized of
the matter and they are taking necessary steps in the said direction but we observe that the speed
with which it is moving is not very satisfactory. In view of the circumstances, we direct that the
respondents shall take expeditious steps to finalize the creation of a proper cadre structure for the
Pharmacists working under them within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. A.K. Mishra) ( G. George Paracken )

Member (A) Member (J)

SRD

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/152702252/ 11