A two-judge bench dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against a Single Judge's order that admitted a petitioner to an MBBS course under the ESIC management quota, clarifying that the earlier judgment must not be treated as a precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH ASWINA, 1936
WA.No. 1356 of 2014 () IN WP(C).21928/2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21928/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.9.2014
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL PANCHADEEP BHAVAN COMRADE INDERJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARG NEW DELHI-110002.
2. THE DEPUTY MEDICAL COMMISSIONER MEDICAL EDUCATION EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN COMRADE INDEERJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARG NEW DELHI-110002.
3. THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN COMRADE INDERJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARG NEW DELHI-110002.
4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-680020.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SUDHEESH DAS, AGED 19 YEARS S/O M.P.DASAKUMAR, RESIDING AT SURYA, URATTIKKAD MAANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-689622
BY SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
W.A.No. 1356 of 2014
Dated this the 1st October, 2014
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
2
WA.1356/14
“8. Insured person for the purpose of availing benefit ESIC Management Quota for his/her wards shall be, as under:
'The insured person' shall be an 'employee' as defined in the ESI Act; and he/she should have been in continuous insurable employment for a period of five years as on 1st January of the year of admission and should have paid at least 78 days of contribution in each contribution period, during this five year period”.
the Aluminium Industries Ltd., who admittedly was covered under the Employees State Insurance Scheme under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The writ petitioner was informed that he could not be considered for the reason that his father had proceeded on leave for the period from 13.5.2009 to 13.10.2009 in connection with illness and therefore had not paid at least 78 days of contribution during the contribution period from 1.4.2009 to 30.9.2009. Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Corporation, the Writ Petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to consider the writ petitioner
3
WA.1356/14
as a ward of insured person for the purpose of Exhibit P2 and to consider him for admission to the MBBS Course under the ESI Medical Colleges in the quota for wards of insured persons in the ESIC Management quota. The learned Single Judge relying on an earlier judgment reported in Remya Krishnan R. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and others (2013 KHC 3697) held that wards of whose employees, who were on leave due to illness were also entitled for the benefit of admission. In the Writ Petition an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge under which, the writ petitioner was already given admission in the MBBS course. The learned Single Judge, by his final judgment, held that the writ petitioner was entitled for admission and confirmed the interim order. The Corporation, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has come up in the Writ Appeal.
against the judgment, which was relied on in the
4
WA.1356/14
impugned judgment, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench by the Corporation, which was allowed. The candidate, Remya Krishnan R. filed appeal before the Apex Court, which was decided as per Exhibit P8 judgment. The appeal was allowed by the Apex Court and the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside. The Apex Court, while restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge made the following observations in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9:
“6. After carefully going through the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Court (s) below and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8. Now, while restoring the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge , we direct the respondent(s) to accommodate the
5
WA.1356/14
appellant-herein for MBBS Course against the available vacant seat in the ESIC Medical College, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, for the present academic year. If such admission is granted, we direct the Medical council of India to accord necessary permission for such admission.
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the Clause 8 of the Prospectus adverted to by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.”
the candidate as the ward of an insured person, but specifically observed that the Court has not expressed any opinion on clause 8 of the Prospectus.
6
WA.1356/14
7
WA.1356/14
Remya Krishnan's case (supra) need not be treated as a precedent.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
vgs1/10/14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment in the earlier Writ Petition, which allowed admission to the MBBS course on interpretation of ESI management quota criteria, should be disturbed on a writ appeal filed by the ESI
Whether the lower court's interpretation regarding the entitlement of wards of insured persons whose fathers were on sick leave clarifies the ESI Act for future precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Remya Krishnan R. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and othersDistinguished¶1
Remya Krishnan R. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and others (2013 KHC 3697)
Exhibit P8 judgmentReferred¶1
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
SUDHEESH DAS
ASHOK BHUSHAN
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
