New Delhi: The Supreme Court has made a definitive ruling regarding the rights of contractual employees, stating that benefits that have already been earned cannot be undone by subsequent amendments applied retroactively. The court highlighted that statutory regulations are intended to have a prospective effect unless the authority creating the rules indicates otherwise.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal from the state of Odisha, thereby upholding the decisions made by the high court. These decisions mandated the consideration of regularization requests from contractual pharmacists employed in Mobile Health Units under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).
The court clarified that a 2020 amendment to the Odisha Pharmacist Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019, is applicable only on a prospective basis. This amendment does not strip pharmacists of their right to regularization if they had already completed six years of satisfactory contractual service prior to this change.
“Any right which had already accrued in favour of the respondents prior to coming into force of the amendment… cannot be taken away by reading the same to be retrospective in effect, when the Rules do not say so,” the bench stated.
Interpreting the amendment in another manner would disrupt the legal principles established in the previous case of State of Odisha v Amit Kumar Mishra (2020). In that instance, the apex court determined that contractual pharmacists are entitled to regularization after six years of satisfactory service, while those who have not reached this milestone are considered contractual government employees until regularization occurs.
The State argued that the amendment dated November 27, 2020, limited regularization to pharmacists in fixed healthcare facilities, excluding those in Mobile Health Units or Teams. Additionally, the State claimed that the petitioners could not seek relief contrary to the amended provisions since they had not challenged the validity of the Rules formulated under Article 309 of the Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court rejected both arguments, asserting that rules under Article 309 are statutory and must be interpreted based on the text and the clear legislative intent regarding their application over time.
“Courts retain the power to interpret the scope of existing statutory provisions even if the validity of the Rules is not under challenge,” the bench remarked.
The bench observed that the respondents had completed six years of contractual service in Mobile Health Units before the amendment took effect. Those who had not met this six-year requirement as of November 27, 2020, will, however, be subject to the updated Rules.
In declining to alter the High Court’s directives, the Supreme Court safeguarded the vested rights of the eligible contractual pharmacists while also establishing a clear boundary for future cases under the new regulatory framework.
