Tribunal directs Administrator to decide regularization claim considering continuous service and precedents.

The applicant, M.K. Mohammed Rafi, was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for a Pharmacist position at Indira Gandhi Hospital, Kavaratti, following a notification from the Department of Health.

After an interview, two individuals were shortlisted, with Mohammed Shafi T.P. receiving Rank No. 1 and being appointed to the notified vacancy.

The applicant, who secured 76% marks, was appointed against a leave vacancy and claims to have been continuously working against leave vacancies since December 6, 1999, and continuously as a Pharmacist against leave vacancies from March 27, 2002.

Records indicate he was transferred from place to place and treated as a regular employee, with service records maintained, annual increments granted, admission to the PF scheme with regular recoveries, and fixation benefits under the RP Rules.

Despite 19 years of continuous service without a break from March 27, 2002, and having reached 56 years of age, his repeated representations for regularization have not been acted upon by the respondents.

The respondents deny the claims, asserting the applicant has no right to regularization and that the O.A. is barred by limitation.

Whether the applicant, having served continuously as a Pharmacist against leave vacancies for 19 years with benefits akin to a regular employee, is entitled to be deemed regularly appointed?

Whether the respondents failed in their duty to consider and decide upon the applicant's requests for regularization despite his long and continuous service and the maintenance of service records?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles derived from decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically referencing *Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.* [2024 KHC 75] and *Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand* [2026 KHC 6078], which likely pertain to the regularization of services of long-term temporary or ad-hoc employees, though the specific legal rule established by these cases is not detailed in the judgment.

The underlying principle appears to be an equitable consideration for employees rendering continuous service for an extended period, especially when treated in many aspects as regular employees.

The Tribunal noted that despite the applicant being engaged only against leave vacancies, service records were maintained, annual increments were provided, he was admitted to the PF scheme with regular recoveries, and fixation benefits were granted under the RP Rules.

These factors indicate that the applicant was largely treated as a regular employee.

The Tribunal also observed that the applicant had been serving continuously without a break from March 27, 2002, for over 19 years, and at 56 years of age, he cannot aspire to employment elsewhere.

The respondents, despite repeated requests, had failed to take a decision on his regularization.

The heavy reliance on the file note obtained under the RTI Act, indicating consideration of the applicant's case for regularization, further supported the applicant's contention that a decision was pending.

The Tribunal connected these facts to the dicta of the Supreme Court cases, implying that the circumstances warranted a decision on regularization.

This decision is to be made within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.