Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, challenge has been posed to the order dated 9.2.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"), dismissing O.A. No. 839/HR/1993, in which the petitioner had prayed for changing the designation of the post of Compounder -cum -Clerk to Pharmacist and by treating it as technical allowing benefit of promotion in the said cadre. Petitioner was appointed as a Compounder -cum -Clerk on 13.11.1961, on which post he joined with the Director, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal. He possesses the qualifications of a trained Compounder and Dresser and is registered Pharmacist under Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short, "1948 Act"). From the date of his appointment, he is discharging the duties as a Pharmacist, including the work of Store Clerk.
(2.) WITH effect from 1.10.1975, two services have been created in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) by designating all Compounders as Pharmacists and accordingly it is claimed that the Compounder -cum -Clerk (the post held by the petitioner) should also be designated as a Pharmacist and declared as a technical service. Post of Storekeeper -cum -Clerk was re -designated as a Pharmacist qua those having diploma/degree and registration as Pharmacist under 1948 Act vide letter dated 9.6.1988 and, therefore, the classification of the post of Compounder -cum -Clerk as an auxiliary category instead of a technical category is not sustainable. Petitioner had been making representations to the respondents, claiming the said benefit and in response to one of such representations, the respondents intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 24.1.1992 that the matter of re -designation of the post of Compounder -cum -Clerk to Pharmacist is under consideration. Petitioner thereafter submitted few representations but when no response was received and he was to retire on 30.10.1993, he preferred O.A. No. 262/HR/1993 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.4.1993, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. In compliance thereto, order dated 29.6.1993 was passed, vide which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. However, it was mentioned in the said order that the issue regarding re -classification of various auxiliary posts was pending before the Board of Arbitration.
(3.) PETITIONER , thus, filed another O.A. No. 839/HR/1993, which stands rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.2.2001 on the ground that O.A. preferred by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation/jurisdiction as provided for under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 as also on merits as the classification done is based on intelligible differentia distinguishing technical and auxiliary categories as projected in the written statement filed by the respondents. It is this order, which is challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner.;