Allowed

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Dr Anjneya K Verma

Delhi HC1 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/13930/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram allowed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order granting age relaxation to a respondent. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, holding the Tribunal failed to decide on a root plea regarding the respondent's insufficient continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, specifically including the issue of lack of requisite service.

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 13930/2018 EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Anita Thakur, Adv. versus

¶6

DR ANJNEYA K VERMA

¶7

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma with Mr. Pranjal Rai,l Adv.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 01.03.2024

¶9

The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 4061/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioner to grant him age relaxation and consider his case for appointment to the post of Insurance Medical Officer, GradeII (Allopathic).

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as it is based on an erroneous presumption that the respondent who was working as a Senior Resident at the ESIC Hospital, Indore was to be treated as an employee of the petitioner

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:08:01

¶13

organisation and was therefore, as per DoPT’s OM dated 27.03.2012 entitled to age relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Insurance Medical Officer, Grade-II (allopathic). She further submits that even if the respondent’s plea, that he had to be treated as an employee of the petitioner, were to be accepted, he did not have the requisite three years service on the cut off date of 07.10.2013, for seeking age relaxation in terms of the instructions issued by the Central Government. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioner to grant age relaxation to the respondent. Furthermore, this plea that on account of having less than three years of service, the respondent was not eligible for seeking age relaxation was never raised by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶15

Having perused the impugned order as also the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, we find that even though this plea was specifically taken by the petitioner in para nos 6 & 10 of its counter affidavit, the impugned order does not even refer to the same. We find that in its counter affidavit the petitioner had specifically urged that the respondent having joined the ESIC Hospital as a Senior Resident only on 27.02.2012, he on the cut off date of 07.10.2013 did not possess the requisite three years’ continuous service to be eligible for age relaxation in terms of the OM dated 27.03.2012. This plea in our view goes to the root of the matter and

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:08:01

¶18

therefore, ought to have been decided by the learned Tribunal before issuance of any directions to the petitioner to grant age relaxation to the respondent.

¶19

In the light of the aforesaid, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the O.A. on merits. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the OA on merits, including the petitioner’s plea that the respondent was not entitled to any age relaxation in terms of OM dated 27.03.2012.

¶20

Needless to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties.

¶21

List the matter before the learned Registrar of the learned Tribunal on 21.03.2024, for further proceedings as per law.

¶22

REKHA PALLI, J

¶23

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

¶24

MARCH 1, 2024 acm

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2024 at 11:08:01

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Dr Anjneya K Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Dr Anjneya K Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadab Rahmani Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Mohammad Hakim and Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Mol Corporation Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anurag Sharma

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Devi Lal Choudhary Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nettel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Amar Enterprises through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anurag Sharma

Gurvinder Singh Vs Air India Limited

A. Venkata Ramana & Ors. Vs CBI & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs Surinder Singh

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Jitender Kaushik

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anil Saran Bhatnagar & Ors.