Dismissed

Jessy Roy v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Dec 2018WP(C)/33720/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a writ petition filed by an ESI employee and her son challenging a 'Ward of Insured Person' certificate classification for medical admissions. The Court declined to entertain the petition as it sought relief regarding a closed academic year and an expired admission policy, leaving options open for future remedies.

What did the court decide?

Court declined to entertain the petition entitling parties to declaration of illegality or compensation regarding a closed academic admission cycle.

Jessy Roy Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JESSY ROY, AGED 41 YEARS W/O. ROY, KOLLANNUR HOUSE CHOWANNOOR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR, 680526

¶8

2 ARSHLI ROY, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. ROY KOLLANNUR HOUSE, CHOWANNOOR P.O. KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680526

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NEW DELHI-110 077

¶12

2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF COMMITTEE (MCC) DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NEW DELHI-110 077.

¶13

3 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET -14, SECTOR-8 DWARAKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110 077

¶14

4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN ESI CORPORATION HQ OFFICE, C.I.G MARG NEW DELHI-110 002

¶15

5 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

¶16

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶17

¶18

6 THE BRANCH MANAGER ESI CORPORATION, BRANCH OFFICE, THYCADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

¶19

7 THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, ESI CORPORATION HQ OFFICE, CIG MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶20

8 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR

¶21

9 THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL CHOWANNUR P.O, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The 1^st petitioner is an employee, covered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Along with her son, she filed this Writ Petition.

¶28

To begin with, the 1^st petitioner applied for a “Ward of Insured

¶29

Person” Certificate for the 2^nd petitioner. The Corporation gave the Ext.P5 Certificate, assigning him Group-III. Questioning that, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. They, in fact, filed this Writ Petition on 10.10.2018. But by then, the whole admissions were closed.

¶30

Not only the petitioners but also many other similarly affected employees filed several Writ Petitions. But they filed those Writ Petitions well in time—that is, before the admissions could close. Thus this Court, in all those Writ Petitions, directed the Corporation to issue them provisional certificates. And then, the wards appeared for the interviews on the strength of those provisional certificates. Eventually, the Court ruled on the merits. In most cases the persons with provisional certificates succeeded and secured admission.

¶31

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶32

¶33

On the other hand, this Court has consistently rejected the writ petitions filed belatedly, the merits notwithstanding. Here is one such Writ Petition.

¶34

The petitioners' counsel has fervently pleaded that the Corporation has patently assigned a wrong group to the petitioners; thus, the 2^nd petitioner lost an opportunity of pursuing his career in medicine. In that context, if the Court declares on merits that the Corporation's action is arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners could as well claim monetary compensation. So contends the counsel.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the policy is annual. For this academic year the admissions were closed long back. According to him, the next academic year, the Government and the Corporation may come up with a different policy.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

¶37

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶38

¶39

Indeed, what the petitioners assert is their right on account of what could be called the constitutional tort allegedly committed by the Corporation. For that, the petitioners may have to come up with an independent Writ Petition, if sustainable, and establish their right to compensation. Or they may as well approach a competent civil court for damages, again, if legally permissible. Here, the petitioners want this Court to indulgent in an academic exercise about their entitlement on an admission policy which has no longer existed and the academic year which has ended.

¶40

I, therefore, decline to entertain the Writ Petition, but leave

¶41

every option open for the petitioners to exhaust the remedies vis-a-vis the Corporation's alleged wrongful action.

¶42

With the above observations, I dispose of the Writ Petition .

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

¶47

WP(C).No. 33720 of 2018

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION E-PEHCHAN CARD ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEAPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNAMKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DTD. 5.6.2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY // SD	P.A. TO JUDGE

Jessy Roy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Roy 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

M.a.Babu Vs Union of India

Naseera Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

V.S.Devarajan Vs State of Kerala

Benny P.P. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

State Bank Institute of Learning Vs the Tahsildar, Kochi

Raj Mohanan P.v., Vs Executive Officer