IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:- 04.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P. NO.23609 OF 2009 A. Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner ..Vs.. 1. The Union of India, rep. by the Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 2. The Director, Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, (Madras Bench), Chennai – 104. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) made in O.A. No.351/2007 dated 6.4.2009 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to grant all consequential and attendant benefits in the post of Pharmacist with effect from 30.10.1999. For Petitioner : Ms. A. Arulmozhi For Respondent : Mr. Syed Mustafa, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Puducherry) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition has been filed seeks to quash an order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) in O.A. No.351/2007 as illegal and consequently to grant the petitioner all consequential and attendant benefits in the post of Pharmacist with effect from 30.10.1999. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist. A written test was conducted. Following the written test conducted by respondents 1 and 2, one Smt. Rajalakshmi was appointed. The said appointment was challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No.627 of 2003 and the same was set aside by the Tribunal by an order dated 23.4.2004 and respondents 1 and 2 were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the said post. The said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No.33775 of 2004 before this Court. An order came to be passed on 9.4.2005, dismissing the said writ petition, whereby the order of the Tribunal has been upheld. 4. The petitioner was offered an order of appointment on 24.2.2006. Having accepted the appointment, the petitioner made a representation on 27th February, 2006 stating that respondents 1 and 2 should give him appointment from 30.10.1999, but the same was rejected by the respondents by a letter dated 29.3.2006. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.351 of 2007. The Tribunal, after giving opportunity to both sides and looking into the materials, rejected the said O.A. Hence this writ petition has arisen before this Court. 5. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an inordinate, undue and deliberate delay in the matter of appointment of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2. The respondents, by filing writ petition before this Court, consumed sufficient time. 6. Learned counsel added further that when the test was conducted for the post of Pharmacist, the appointment should not be given to Rajalakshmi, who was not qualified for the same, but the same was offered to her, which necessitated the petitioner to challenge the same by way of filing O.A. No.627 of 2003 before the Tribunal. Even after the Tribunal has set aside the said appointment, respondents 1 and 2 challenged the same by way of filing writ petition and thus the undue delay has been caused. When really the petitioner should have been appointed in the year 1999, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment order was given only on 24.2.2006 and thus, the petitioner was entitled for the appointment with all remuneration, emoluments etc. from 30.10.1999 onwards. In the instant case, the doctrine of "No work no pay" would not be applicable., when there are valid reasons to make an exception to the said Rule. Under such circumstances, the contention put forth by the petitioner should have been accepted. 7. Learned counsel added further that even if the petitioner is not entitled for salary emoluments from the year 1999, there should not be any impediment for respondents 1 and 2 to consider the promotion of the petitioner from that point of time. 8. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the above contentions and paid anxious consideration on the submissions made by either side. 9. After doing so, this Court is afraid whether the Court can accept the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case. There was a written test for the post of Pharmacist, in which process, one Rajalakshmi was selected. Aggrieved over the selection, the petitioner has challenged the same before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.627 of 2003 and thus, when the order came to be passed by the Tribunal, setting aside the appointment of Rajalakshmi, respondents 1 and 2 have challenged the same by way of writ petition and the same was also disposed of on 9.4.2005 and thus, from all the above, it could be quite clear that from the time of conducting written test in the year 1999, the matter is pending either before the Tribunal or before this Court by way of filing O.A. or writ petition. It actually covered pending litigation before the Court. Now it cannot be said that delay has been caused deliberately nor it can be termed as an act by respondents 1 and 2. 10. It is pertinent to point out that immediately after the writ petition was over and an order was pronounced by this Court, appointment order was given on 24.2.2006 and the same was accepted by the petitioner. Now the only reason put forth by the petitioner is that it is a case where there was a delay that was caused by respondents 1 and 2, which would suffice to make an exception to the rule of "No work no pay" and it has got to be ordered. This Court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whenever there is a valid reason contrary to the rule, it can be applied. 11. In the instant case, in the year 1999, Rajalakshmi was appointed and the same was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the said appointment and gave direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, respondents 1 and 2 have filed writ petition. After writ petition was over, appointment order was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given to the petitioner following the order passed by this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to see any reason, which indicate that it is contrary to the regular rule of "No work No pay". 12. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, even though the petitioner is not given salary and emoluments from the year 1999 onwards, the petitioner's case could be considered for promotion. In answer, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 stated that it was only one post of Pharmacist and it has been filled up and in that course, there is no promotion post. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Under such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1. The Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, The Union of India, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 2. The Director, Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, (Madras Bench), Chennai – 104. + 1 cc to AGP (P) (SR 128) W.P. No.23609 of 2009 and connected M.P. RV (CO) RH (12.1.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/