Partly allowed

Smitha Rajkumar v. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Kerala HC6 Mar 2019OP (CAT)/76/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of the petitioner's illegality claim but directed the Employers State Insurance Corporation to compassionately consider the petitioner's fresh transfer request to Kerala based on personal problems within two months, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Defined by the direction to consider the petitioner's representation for transfer to Kerala within two months; the impugned order was modified to this extent and the petition disposed of.

Smitha Rajkumar Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

OP (CAT).No. 76 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 634/2018 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 04-01-2019

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SMITHA RAJKUMAR

¶11

AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. H. RAJKUMAR, STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESIC HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (ON LEAVE), RESIDING AT 327, KATARI BAGH, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SMT.U.RESHMA GOPAN SRI.B.HARRYLAL SRI.M.V.ASHIM SRI.R.BALAKRISHNAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION

¶16

HEAD QUARTERS' OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, C.I.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶17

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

¶18

EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CORPORATION, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶19

3 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT,

¶20

ESIC HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 501

¶21

4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN) ESIC HOSPITAL, BASAIDARAPUR, NEW DELHI - 110 015.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL

¶23

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

OP (CAT).No. 76 of 2019

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶28

The diversion of the petitioner from New Delhi to Kerala by Annexure A11 order has been cancelled by Annexure A16 order. Resultantly, the petitioner is now forced to go back to New Delhi which is her parent region. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation( ESIC for short) points out that there was excess staff in Kerala necessitating the cancellation of the diversion of the petitioner. We do not think that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in refusing to entertain the claim of the petitioner.

¶29

Nevertheless, we direct the first respondent to consider Annexure A21 representation put in by the petitioner. The same shall be done untrammeled by any observations contained in the order impugned as well as in this judgment. The petitioner has pointed out several personal problems justifying a transfer to Kerala. The same shall be considered with compassion in accordance with Annexure A3 policy within a period of two months. The impugned order of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent and the Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

V.CHITAMBARESH

JUDGE

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

SKS/6.3.2019

OP (CAT).No. 76 of 2019

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.7.18 PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 146/2018

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 634/2018 WITH ANNEXURES (PAGES 19-102) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET DATED 23/7/2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 20/12/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON TODAY MOTION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE HON'BLE CAT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/1/2019 OF THE CAT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 8/12/2018 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P7

Smitha Rajkumar v. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha Rajkumar v. Employees State Insurance Corporation

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

Babu S Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation Head Quarters

Sajeev Vs Vineetha

Sruthy V.N. Vs Sreejith

V.S. Aravinda Ghosh Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary Vs T.Moideenkutty

P.Mohammed Asaraf Vs State of Kerala