Disposed

Benoy K. Paulose v. Union of India

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018OP (CAT)/64/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition by directing the third respondent to consider pending representations submitted by petitioners—staff nurses seeking to prevent potential transfers under revised recruitment regulations—before finalizing said regulations, aligning with a direction issued in a similar matter by the CAT Madras Bench.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director General, ESIC to consider pending representations (Annexures A9–A12) submitted by petitioners before finalization of revised recruitment regulations.

Benoy K. Paulose Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶7

OP (CAT).No. 64 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDERIN OA 180/00199/2018 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 26-02-2018

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE O.A.

¶10

1 BENOY K. PAULOSE,

¶11

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.K.K.PAULOSE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683501, RESIDING AT

¶12

KEERIKKATTIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM P.O., KOOZHOOR-683541.

¶13

2 ARUN P.B.,

¶14

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.P.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683501, RESIDING AT PUTHULOKKIL HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA,

¶15

IDUKKI, PIN-685605.

¶16

3 BABURAJ P.K.,

¶17

AGED 32 YEARS, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683501, RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, OMASSERI VIA., CALICUT-673582.

¶18

4 ELDHO M.GEORGE,

¶19

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.P.GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683501, RESIDING AT MUKULATH HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683556.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:

¶22

UNION OF INDIA,

¶23

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶24

OP(CAT) 64/2018

¶25

¶26

EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, C.I.G. ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶27

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, C.I.G.ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶28

R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN

¶29

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

OP(CAT) 64/2018

¶31

¶32

OP (CAT).No. 64 of 2018 ()

¶33

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.180/199/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

¶36

TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2018 IN O.A.NO.180/199/2018 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶38

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2018 IN O.A.NO.310/00191/2018 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH.

¶39

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.F.NO.A-12/11/1/2017-MED-VI DATED 04/05/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶41

- - - - O.P.(CAT) No. 64 of 2018

¶42

¶43

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2018

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶46

The petitioners are before us aggrieved by the dismissal of their O.A. by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as per order dated 26.2.2018. The petitioners are Staff Nurses working in the Employees State Insurance Corporation ('ESIC' for short), Udyogamandal. According to them, as per Annexure A1 Notification for recruitment of staff in various Paramedical cadres in the ESIC, the candidates appointed are not liable to be transferred outside the region to which they are posted. However, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 have been amended classifying the civil posts under the Central Government, in the manner provided

¶47

O.P.(CAT) 64/2018.

¶48

¶49

therein. According to them, the same is in the process of being implemented in the ESI Corporation also. They apprehend that when the amendments are implemented, their posts would become transferable and they may be liable to be transferred to any place in India. As per Annexure A7, objections had been called for. They have submitted their objections. They had approached the CAT seeking appropriate directions in the matter. However, the CAT has dismissed the O.A. finding that the reliefs sought for were premature, at the same time observing that if representations are received, the authorities shall be obliged to consider the same.

¶50

According to Adv. Elvin Peter, some others had approached the CAT, Madras by filing O.A. No.180/199/2018. The said O.A. has been disposed of by Ext.P3 order directing the representations submitted by the applicants therein to be considered. In view of the above, it is submitted that, a similar direction to consider the representation of the petitioners herein is also necessary to be issued in this case. This is

¶51

O.P.(CAT) 64/2018.

¶52

¶53

especially so, according to the counsel, since the proposed amendments are proposed to be given effect retrospectively from 2009 onwards.

¶54

We have heard the Standing Counsel for the ESI

¶55

Corporation also.

¶56

Annexure A7 shows that representations

¶57

received were examined and disposed of by the authorities. We are told that Annexures A9 to A12 representations are pending consideration of the third respondent. We notice that the CAT has in Ext.P2 order observed that the representations received shall be considered before finalization of the revised recruitment regulations. Since the Madras Bench has already issued a positive direction to dispose of the representations that were the subject matter of the O.A. before the said Bench, we are of opinion that a similar relief is necessary to be granted to the petitioners herein also.

¶58

In the result, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Annexures A9 to

¶59

O.P.(CAT) 64/2018.

¶60

¶61

A12 representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before finalization of the revised recruitment regulations.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶64

Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

¶65

Benoy K. Paulose v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benoy K. Paulose v. Union of India

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

Dr.Anoop Balan Vs the Director and Hod Centre for Marine Living Resource & Ecology

P.K. Devaraj Vs Union of India

Fausia Hassan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Srikrishna Aggithaya K

Lovely K. Mathew Vs the Commissioner

Sunil S.S Vs Kerala Public Service Commission