Partly allowed

T.R. Molly v. Union of India

Kerala HC5 Nov 2020OP (CAT)/51/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Absorbed ESI hospital nurses disputed their absorption dates and credit for prior State service. The Court upheld absorption from hospital takeover, held the seniority claims timely, and declared that the employee petitioners' seniority must follow paragraph 3.4 of the governing Office Memorandum. The Corporation's three petitions were dismissed; the employees' petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Declared that seniority of the petitioners in OP (CAT) No.51/2020 shall be determined under paragraph 3.4 of the governing Office Memorandum.

T.R. Molly Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.17 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 369/2018 DATED 28-11-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:

¶10

1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL(REP. 2 TO 5).

¶11

2 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691502.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(ADMNIN), ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691502.

¶13

4 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC HOSPITAL,EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691505.

¶14

5 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N S ROUND,THRISSUR-688020.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN

¶16

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA & RESPONDENTS 1,7,8 IN OA:

¶17

1 SUSHAMA N. AGED 57 YEARS,D/O SUKUMARAN.K, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL,EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505, RESIDING AT KAIRALI NIVAS,POCHAMKONAM, EZHUKONE.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶18

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶19

-2-

¶20

2 MARY USHA.A,

¶21

AGED 55 YEARS D/O.S.ALEXANDER, NURSING SISTER,ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505, RESIDING AT ABHI NIVAS,PERAYAM MULAVANA.P.O,KOLLAM.

¶22

3 MARY VIMALA.C.S, D/O STANSILOUS,NURSING SISTER,ISI HOSPITAL,EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505, RESIDING AT VIMALA SADAN,KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶23

4 C.R.CHANDRALEKHA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O N.RAMAKRISHNAN VAIDYAN,NURSING SISTER,ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505,RESIDING AT KRISHNAPRIYA,THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL.P.O,KOLLAM.

¶24

5 LIZHY.A, AGED 53 YEARS

¶25

D/O ANTONY,NURSING SISTER,ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505,RESIDING AT LIMLA BHAVAN,KERALAPURAM,PERUMPUZHA.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶26

6 JAYANTHI.N.A, AGED 51 YEARS D/O KUTTAPPAN,NURSING SISTER,ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE,KOLLAM-691505,RESIDING AT VANMATHY,SRP MARKET.P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶27

7 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

¶28

8 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT-695001.

¶29

9 THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶30

R1-6 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS R1-6 BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER R7 – SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI R8 & R9 – SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, SR. G.P.

¶31

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).51/2020, OP (CAT).157/2020, OP (CAT).183/2020, THE COURT ON 05-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -3-

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶38

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶39

OP (CAT).No.51 OF 2020

¶40

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 282/2017 DATED 28-11-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶41

PETITIONERS:

¶42

1 T.R. MOLLY AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.J.TITUS, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT KAVYA, OPP. TO VIMALA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KARAMCOD P.O., CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM-691579.

¶43

2 RENI A., AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.A.V.GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT KARUNYA, EROM NORTH, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM-691572.

¶44

3 BINDU S.S., AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT SAVITHRI BHAVAN, PULIMATH P.O., PORUNTHAMON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695612.

¶45

4 SARASWATHY P., AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.P.PARAMESWARA PANIKKER, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, KOONAYIL, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM-691301.

¶46

5 SUDHAMONY S., AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.P.SANKARAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT PLAVILAVEEDU, MAIDANAM, VARKALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141.

¶47

6 LAILA C.L., AGED 40 YEARS ,D/O.P.K.LESHMANAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT AKSHYA, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM-691301.

¶48

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶49

-4-

¶50

7 BINDHU K., AGED 39 YEARS D/O.PONNAYYAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT ANIZHAM PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM-691021.

¶51

8 SUNIJA C., AGED 40 YEARS D/O.CHANDRASENAN M., STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT RAJAGIRI, VALATHUNGAL P.O., KOLLAM-691011.

¶52

9 GIRIJA KUMARI G., AGED 42 YEARS D/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT V.V.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695603.

¶53

10 I.MOLY, AGED 39 YEARS D/O. K.K.MUKUNDAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT PLANTHOTTAM, POZHIKKARA, S.PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-691334.

¶54

11 MONI G., AGED 52 YEARS D/O.GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574, RESIDING AT ANNU VILLA, ERAMTHIKKU, KARAMCODE, KOLLAM-691579.

¶55

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH SRI.A.V.VIVEK

¶56

RESPONDENTS:

¶57

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶58

2 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PANCHADWEEP BHAVAN, CIG ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶59

3 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARRIPALLY, KOLLAM-691574.

¶60

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶61

-5-

¶62

4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN), ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, ASRAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, 691502.

¶63

5 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶64

6 THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THYCAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶65

7 BINUSHMA P.G., AGED 37 YEARS W/O.SUNILKUMAR, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT TC 48/882(2), GOKULAM, KONCHIRAVILA, MANAKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685608.

¶66

8 PRIYA P., AGED 36 YEARS W/O.M.THILAKAN, STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLLAYIL CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., KOLLAM-691302.

¶67

9 SHERIN N.N., AGED 36 YEARS W/O,BIJU V., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NEHALAYAM, ALAMUKKU, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695575.

¶68

10 KUNJUMOL P.N., AGED 43 YEARS W/O.K.K.RAJU, STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOPANAM, SAMURTHI NAGAR, 8-A, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-691302.

¶69

11 L.PADAMKUMARI, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.PRAVEEN KUMAR K.S., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA T.C.21/1461, NEDUMACADU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶70

12 BINDU M. THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SINI GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLLAMPPALLYTHARA, MERA NAGAR, 80-A, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691010.

¶71

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶72

-6-

¶73

13 INDU S., AGED 40 YEARS

¶74

W/O.PADMAKUMAR G., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NIVEDHYAM, H.NO.08-332, MEKKONE, CHANDANA THOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691014.

¶75

14 ROSE CHARLES, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.SHAJI K.V., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOKKAPPALLIL (H), THONACKADU PO, CHERIYANADU, CHENGANNUR, ALLAPPEY DISTRICT-689121.

¶76

15 BINDU S., AGED 41 YEARS

¶77

W/O.JAYAPRAKASH K., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PULIYANMAVIL HOUSE, KAVMBHAGAM PO, KIZHAKKUMMINRI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689102.

¶78

16 SREELEKHA P.B., AGED 43 YEARS

¶79

W/O.P.RADHAKRISHNANSTAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ANAYADI, PADEETATHIL, PALLARVIMANGALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALLAPPEY DISTRICT-690101.

¶80

17 KAVITHA ARAVIND, AGED 40 YEARS

¶81

W/O.BINULAL, STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA GADHA, KOTTIKADA P.O., KOLLAM-691021.

¶82

18 SUNITHA S., AGED 37 YEARS W/O.SHAJI T.J., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHAJI NIVAS, MITHRANIKETHAN P.O., VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543.

¶83

19 SUSHEELA T., AGED 48 YEARS W/O.SURESH BABU V., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SABHALAYAM, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM-691511.

¶84

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶85

-7-

¶86

20 SIJITHA S., AGED 40 YEARS W/O.SUNIL P.S., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, KUZHIYAM SOUTH TEMPLE NAGAR, HOUSE NO.5, CHANDANA THOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691014.

¶87

21 SEENA M.NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.ANILKUMAR R., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SEENA SADAN, VALANCHERY, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695601.

¶88

22 ANNIE PIUS, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.GRACIOUS K.E., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHARON COTTAGE, MARUTHADY P.O., KOLLAM-691003.

¶89

23 SHEENA H.M., AGED 36 YEARS W/O.SANTHOSH R.P., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHEENA MANDIRAM, EDATHARA P.O., KARYAM, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM-691536.

¶90

24 SOUMYA S., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SHAIJU B., STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT OZHUKUPARA HOUSE, VATTAPPARA HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695028.

¶91

25 DIANA JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ASHOK EAPEN, STAFF NURSE, PARIPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT AN-125, ADARSH NAGAR, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶92

26 LAISAMMA P.M., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.KURIAN T.C., STAFF NURSE,ASHARAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THADIMATTATHIL HOUSE,PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686004.

¶93

27 PREETHA S.V., AGED 34 YEARS W/O.SAJUMON K., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT UTHRAM, KAVOTTUMUKKU, KAZHAKKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582.

¶94

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶95

-8-

¶96

28 VINEETHA KUMARY T.K., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.G.K.SHANOJ, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THRAISHAM, IRIKKUNNAM, NETTAYAM, MANICANDESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.

¶97

29 SURYA K., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.MADHU P.P., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KAREETHARA HOUSE, CHETTIMANGALAM, THEKKENADA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686142.

¶98

30 JENNA PAUL, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.JIJU P.D., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POLLAYIL HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O., NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH, ERNAKULAM-685517.

¶99

31 MANJU M.V., AGED 39 YEARS W/O.G.D.HARIKUMAR, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, HOUSE NO.20, V.S.P.NAGAR, KERAVDDURAY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶100

32 PRABHU MUMAR R.A., AGED 34 YEARS S/O.D.RAVEENDRAN, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, MULAMMOODU, MUKKAMPALAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020.

¶101

33 GEETHAKUMARI N., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SURESH KUMAR C., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NERMALAYAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691504.

¶102

34 ROOPA P., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.GOPAKUMAR M.G., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ANUROOP, PANAMANNA P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKADU-679501.

¶103

35 INDU P.R., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN V., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NANDA KRISHNA, KANNIMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADY, KOLLAM-691003.

¶104

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶105

-9-

¶106

36 AMBILI R., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.CYRIL CHACKO, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA VEEDU, THANNICODU, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691501.

¶107

37 AMBILI P.A., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BIJU P., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NADUMUTTAM HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM-683574.

¶108

R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR R2-4 BY ADV. SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, SR. G.P. R5 & 6 BY ADV. KUM.P.H.RIMJU R7-37 BY ADV. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY

¶109

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).17/2020, OP (CAT).157/2020, OP (CAT).183/2020, THE COURT ON 05-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶110

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶111

-10-

¶112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶113

PRESENT

¶114

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶115

¶116

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶117

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶118

OP (CAT).No.157 OF 2020

¶119

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 282/2017 DATED 28-11-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶120

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE OA:

¶121

1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHADWEEP BHAWAN, C.I.G. ROAD, NEW DELHI-02, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶122

2 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 574.

¶123

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMIN), ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 502.

¶124

BY ADVS.

¶125

SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR KUM.P.H.RIMJU

¶126

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 5 TO 37 IN THE OA:

¶127

1 T.R.MOLLY AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.J.TITUS, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT KAVYA, OPP. TO VIMALA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KARAMCOD P.O., CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM.

¶128

2 RENI A.GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.A.V.GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT KARUNYA, EROM NORTH, CHATHANOOR.

¶129

3 BINDU.S.S. AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT SAVITHRI BHAVAN, PULIMATH P.O., PORUNTHAMON.

¶130

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶131

-11-

¶132

4 SARASWATHY.P. AGED 50 YEARS D/O.P.PARAMESWARA PANIKKER, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIK, KOONAYIL, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶133

5 SUDHAMONY.S. AGED 48 YEARS STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT PLAVILAVEEDU, MAIDANAM, VARKALA P.O., VARKALA.

¶134

6 LAILA.C.L. AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.P.L.LESHMANAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT AKSHYA, KURUMANDAL. PARAVUR.

¶135

7 BINDU.K., AGED 43 YEARS D/O.PONNAYYAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT ANIZHAM, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM.

¶136

8 SUNIJA.C. AGED 44 YEARS D/O.CHANDRASENAN.M., STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT RAJAGIRI, VALATHUNGAL, KOLLAM.

¶137

9 GIRIJA KUMARI.G. AGED 46 YEARS D/O.GOLPINATHAN NAIR, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT V.V.NIVAS, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶138

10 MOLY.L. AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.K.K.MIKUNDAN, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT PLANTHOTTAM, POZHIKKARA, PARAVOOR.S., KOLLAM.

¶139

11 MONI.G., AGED 56 YEARS D/O.GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ESIC HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574, RESIDING AT ANNU VILLA, ERAMTHIKKU, KARAMCODE.

¶140

12 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶141

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶142

-12-

¶143

13 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶144

14 THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶145

15 BINUSHMA.P.G. AGED 37 YEARS W/O.SUNILKUMAR, ATAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT TC 48/882(2), GOKULAM, KONCHIRAVILA, MANAKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶146

16 PRIYA.P., AGED 36 YEARS W/O.M.THILAKA, STAFF NURSE, PARIPPALLY ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLLAYIL CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 302.

¶147

17 SHERIN.N.B., AGED 36 YEARS W/O.BIJU.V., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NAHALAYAM, ALAMUKKU, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 575.

¶148

18 KUNJUMOL.P.N. AGED 43 YEARS W/O.K.K.RAJU, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOPANAM, SAMURTHI NAGAR, 8-A, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 302.

¶149

19 L.PADMAKUMARI, AGED 44 YEARS W/O.PRAVEEN KUMAR.K.S., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA, T.C.21/1461, NEDUMACADU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶150

20 BINDU M.THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.SINI GEORGE, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLLAMPALLYTHARA, MERA NAGAR, 80-4, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶151

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶152

-13-

¶153

21 INDU.S. AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.PADMAKUMAR.G., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NIVEDHYAM, H.NO.08/332, MEKKONE CHANDANA THOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014.

¶154

22 ROSE CHARLES, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI.K.V., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOKKAPPALLIL HOUSE, THONACKADU P.O., CHERIYANADU, CHENGANNUR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶155

23 BINDU.S., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASH.K., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PULIYANMAVIL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., KIZHAKKUMMINRI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 102.

¶156

24 SREELEKHA.P.B.

¶157

AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ANAYADI, PADEETATHIL, PALLARVIMANGALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶158

25 KAVITHA ARAVIND,

¶159

AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BINULAL, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA GADHA, KOTTIKADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶160

26 SUNITHA.S. AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI.T.J., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHAJI NIVAS, MITHANIKETHAN P.O., VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶161

27 SUSHEELA.T. AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SURESH BABU.V., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SABHALAYAM, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM-691 511.

¶162

28 SIJITHA.S., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SUNIL.P.S., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, KUZHIYAM SOUTH TEMPLE NAGAR, HOUSE NO.5, CHANDANA THOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014.

¶163

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶164

-14-

¶165

29 SEENA M.NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.ANILKUMAR.R., STAFF NURSE, PARIPPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SEENA SADAN, VALANCHERY, KILIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601.

¶166

30 ANNIE PIUS, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.GRACIOUS K.E., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHARON COTTAGE, MARUTHADY P.O., KOLLAM-691 003.

¶167

31 SHEENA.H.M. AGED 36 YEARS W/O.SANTHOSH.R.P., STAFF NURSE, PARIPPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHEENA MANDIRAM, EDATHARA P.O., KARYAM, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM-691 536.

¶168

32 SOUMYA.S., AGED 32 YEARS W/O.SHAIJU.B., STAFF NURSE, PARIPPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT OZHUKUPARA HOUSE, VATTAPRA HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.

¶169

33 DIANA JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS W/O.ASOK EAPEN, STAFF NURSE, PARIPPALLY, ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AN-125, ADARSH NAGAR, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶170

34 LAISAMMA.P.M., AGED 41 YEARS W/O.KURIAN.T.C., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THADIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 004.

¶171

35 PREETHA.S.V. AGED 34 YEARS W/O.SAJUMON.K., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT UTHRAM, KAVOTTUMUKKU, KAZHAKKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.

¶172

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶173

-15-

¶174

36 VINEETHA KUMARY.T.K., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.G.K.SHANOJ, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THRAISHAM, IRUKKUNNAM, NETTAYAM, MANICANDESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶175

37 SURYA.K.

¶176

AGED 45 YEARS,W/O.MADHU.P.P., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KAREETHARA HOUSE, CHETTIMANGALAM, THEKKENADA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 142.

¶177

38 JEENA PAUL, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.JIJU.P.D., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POLLAYIL HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O., NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH, ERNAKULAM.

¶178

39 MANJU.M.V. AGED 39 YEARS W/O.G.D.HARIKUMAR, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, HOUSE NO.20, V.S.P. NAGAR, KERAVDDURAY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶179

40 PRABHU KUMAR.R.A., AGED 34 YEARS S/O.D.RAVEENDRAN, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, MULAMMOODU, MUKKAMPALAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.

¶180

41 GEETHAKUMARI.N. AGED 39 YEARS W/O.SURESH KUMAR.,C., STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESIC HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NERMALAYAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 504.

¶181

42 ROOPA.P. AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.GOPAKUMAR.M.G., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ANUROOP, PANAMANNA P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 501.

¶182

43 INDU.P.R., AGED 41 YEARS,W/O.VIJAYAN, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NANDAKRISHNA, KANNIMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADY, KOLLAM-03.

¶183

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶184

-16-

¶185

44 AMBILI.R., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.CYRIL CHACKO, STAFF NURSE, ASHRAMAM ESI HOSPITAL, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA VEEDU, THANNICODU, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 501. 45 AMBILI.P.A., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.BIJU.P., STAFF NURSE, UDYOGAMANDAL, ESI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NADUMUTTAM HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM. R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. R1-11 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.VIVEK R1-11 BY ADV. SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH R1-11 BY ADV. SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN R12 BY ADV SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI R13 & R14 BY ADV.SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, SR. G.P. R12 BY ADV. MR.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC R15-45 BY ADV. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY R17, R19-20, R22-23, R26-27, R29, R31, R35, R41-42, R45 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶186

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).17/2020, OP (CAT).51/2020, OP (CAT).183/2020, THE COURT ON 05-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶187

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶188

-17-

¶189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶190

PRESENT

¶191

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶192

¶193

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶194

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶195

OP (CAT).No.183 OF 2020

¶196

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 176/2017 DATED 28-11-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶197

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IN OA:

¶198

1 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL.

¶199

2 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL,

¶200

ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691502.

¶201

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMIN) ESIC MODEL AND SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691502.

¶202

4 THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESIC HOSPITAL, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691505.

¶203

5 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE, REGIONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S ROUND, THRISSUR - 20.

¶204

BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR

¶205

RESPONDENTS/APPLICATS IN OA & RESPONDENT NOS.1,7, 8-19 IN OA:

¶206

1 MARY USHA A.

¶207

AGED 55 YEARS D/O. S. ALEXANDER, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT ABHI NIVAS, PERAYAM MULAVANA P O, KOLLAM.

¶208

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶209

-18-

¶210

2 MARY VIMALA C.S

¶211

AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. STANSILOUS, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT VIMALA SADAN, KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA P O, KOLLAM.

¶212

3 C.R. CHANDRALEKHA AGED 55 YEARS D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN VAIDYAN, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT KRISHNAPRIYA, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL P O, KOLLAM.

¶213

4 LIZY A

¶214

AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. ANTONY, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT LIMLA BHAVAN, KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA P O, KOLLAM.

¶215

5 RADHAMONI S

¶216

AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. SANKARAN, RTD. NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT PULARI, PULIPARA JUNCTION, MULAVANA P.O, KUNDARA KOLLAM.

¶217

6 SUSHAMA N

¶218

AGED 56 YEARS

¶219

D/O. SUKUMARAN K, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT KAIRALI NIVAS, POCHAMKONAM EZHUKONE, P.O, KOLLAM.

¶220

7 JAYANTHI N.A

¶221

AGED 51 YEARS

¶222

D/O. KUTTAPPAN P.O, NURSING SISTER, ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691505, RESIDING AT VANMATHY, SRP MARKET P O, KARUNAGAPPALLY , KOLLAM.

¶223

8 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI -110002.

¶224

9 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,

¶225

10 THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶226

11 ASHA VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. VARGHESE ABRAHAM, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PEACE COTTAGE, 39/A, BAPPUGI NAGAR, ASRAMAM P O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶227

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶228

-19-

¶229

12 MAYA T.R AGED 44 YEARS W/O. SAJU K.S NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT UTHRADAM, KOTTIYAM P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶230

13 SHEEJA V AGED 44 YEARS W/O. ANIYAN D.V,NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOORYA GANGA, MAYYANAD P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶231

14 SMITHA S.S AGED 44 YEARS W/O. ANILKUMAR K, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING ATESIC STAFF QUARTERS-6, DESINGANADU NAGAR - 156, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM - 691002.

¶232

15 SASEENDRA O AGED 46 YEARS W/O. AJITH, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, PAMPALIL, PERINAD P O,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶233

16 LINCY JOLLY AGED 46 YEARS W/O. JOLLY ANTONY, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT B- 302, VAIDYA GARDENS FLAT, KADAVIPURAM NAGAR, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶234

17 SAJI JOSEPH AGED 47 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT B-302, VAIDYA GARDENS FLAT, KAVADIPURAM NAGAR, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶235

18 BINDU AMMAL R AGED 44 YEARS W/O. ANILKUMAR, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PUNARTHAM, THATTAMALA P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶236

19 SINI RETNAM R AGED 45 YEARS W/O. VIJU PANICKER P.K, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SINI NIVAS, UMAYANALLOOR P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶237

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶238

-20-

¶239

20 SHERLY JIJU AGED 41 YEARS W/O. JIJU C. ABRAHAM, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 372, BHAWANA NAGAR, KADAPPAKADA P O , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶240

21 M. SUJA AGED 46 YEARS W/O. SURESH BABU K.N, NURSING SISTER, ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT AVITTAM, HOUSE NO. 433, VYDYASALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶241

R1 TO R7BY ADV. SHRI.THAMPAN THOMAS R8 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R9 & R10 BY ADV.SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, SR. G.P. R11-21 BY ADV. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY

¶242

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).17/2020, OP (CAT).51/2020, OP (CAT).157/2020, THE COURT ON 05-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶243

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

'C.R.'

-21-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2020

¶248

Gopinath, J:

¶249

These original petitions have been filed challenging a common order dated 28-11-2019 in OA No.369/2018, OA No.282/2017 and OA No.176/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Though the Central Administrative Tribunal had disposed of 11 cases through the same order, the challenge in these Original Petitions is confined to the orders in the three Original Applications mentioned above. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) and its officers have filed OP (CAT) No.17/2020 challenging the order in OA No.369/2018; OP (CAT) No.157/2020 challenging the order in OA No.282/2017 and OP (CAT) No.183/2020 challenging the order in OA No.176/2017. The applicants in OA No.282/2017 have filed OP (CAT) No.51/2020 challenging the order in that original application to the extent that it denies certain reliefs sought for in that original application.

¶250

The facts fall in a very narrow compass. The Employees State Insurance Corporation which is a statutory body under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 had decided as a matter of policy to take over ESI hospitals in various states in the country together with the staff provided they exercise their option to be employed by the Corporation in lieu of their employment under the concerned State Government.

¶251

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶252

-22-

¶253

In these cases, we are concerned with the seniority of Head Nurses and Staff Nurses in the ESI Hospitals at Udyogamandal, Paripally and Ezhukone, on their absorption by the ESI Corporation. The conditions of absorption of members of the staff in these hospitals i.e. in respect of those who opted for absorption by the ESI Corporation were set out in a document titled as the ‘Terms of absorption’ which was finalized through proceedings dated 13-06-2011 contained in letter NO.A-11/11/10/09 Med-6 from the Joint Director (M.A.) addressed to the Medical Superintendents of ESI hospitals at Paripally, Ezhukone, Udyogamandal and Vapi. The said terms of absorption have been produced as Ext.P5 (R7 (c)) in OP (KAT) No.51/2020. The date of taking over of Udyogamandal ESI Hospital was on 02-11-2009; that of Paripally ESI Hospital was on 16-04-2010 and that of the Ezhukone ESI Hospital was on 20-04-2010. The ESI Corporation took the stand that notwithstanding the different dates on which the hospitals were taken over, the date of absorption of the staff will be 04-03-2011. This is stated to be on the basis that staff in question had submitted their technical resignation to the State Government and the same was accepted only with effect from 03-03-2011. The Tribunal found that in the case of Udyogamandal ESI Hospital the controversy regarding the date of absorption was settled by the order in OA No.1175/2013 where the date of absorption of staff in respect of Udyogamandal hospital was held to be 0211-2009 which was the date on which the said hospital was taken over by

¶254

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -23-

¶255

the ESI Corporation. The order in OA No.1175/2013 was challenged before this court. This court held that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct in law. The matter appears to have been challenged before the Supreme Court by the ESI Corporation. Though the matter was pending before the Supreme Court when the present cases were decided by the Tribunal, by now we are informed that the Civil Appeals filed challenging the judgment of this court which confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in OA No.1175/2013 has been dismissed by order dated 04-02-2020. The Tribunal has followed the view taken by it in OA No.1175/2013 which was confirmed by this court and also by the Supreme Court through order referred to above. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in respect of staff working in the 3 hospitals in question, their date of absorption in ESI Corporation would be 02-11-2011 in the case of Udyogamandal hospital, 16-04-2010 in the case of Paripally hospital and 20-04-2010 in the case of Ezhukone hospital. It further held that the seniority and promotion will be governed on that basis with all consequential benefits. The claim of the applicants before the Tribunal that they should be given the benefit of seniority and length of service under the State Government prior to absorption was rejected by the Tribunal holding that such claim was clearly barred by limitation with reference to the period prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The ESI Corporation challenges the finding of the Tribunal that the date of absorption will be the date on

¶256

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶257

-24-

¶258

which the respective hospitals were taken over. According to them the date of absorption cannot be any date earlier than 04-03-2011. The applicants in O.A. No.282/2017 have approached this court through OP (CAT) No.51/2020 challenging the finding of the Tribunal that their claim for seniority with reference to the length of service under the State Government is barred by limitation.

¶259

We have heard Sri. T.V. Ajayakumar and Sri. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation; Sri. Thampan Thomas & V. Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in the original petitions filed by the ESI Corporation and for the petitioners in OP (CAT) No.51/2020 and Sri.K.P Harish & Jackson Johny for respondents 7 to 37 in O.P (CAT) 51 of 2020. The exhibits referred to in this judgment are in the manner they are marked in OP (CAT) No.51/2020 unless otherwise indicated.

¶260

The learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation would contend inter-alia that the absorbed staff were bound by the terms of their absorption. They would submit that there was no question of reckoning their service under the State Government as this was never part of the terms of absorption. According to them, the date of absorption and consequential seniority will count only from 4.3.2011 as the employees in question were employees of the State Government until their technical resignation was accepted by the State Government w.e.f 3.3.2011. The claim

¶261

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -25-

¶262

for seniority with reference to the length of service under the State Government, it is submitted, is clearly barred by limitation. It is also contended that the relief claiming seniority could at any rate not be adjudicated or granted in the absence of those who may be affected on the party array. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 37 in O.P (CAT) 51 of 2020 would also reiterate the contentions taken on behalf of the ESI Corporation.

¶263

The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in the original petitions filed by the ESI Corporation and for the petitioners in OP (CAT) No.51/2020 would, however, contend that the absorbed staff were clearly entitled to seniority with reference to the length of service under the State Government. According to them the benefit of the previous service has been extended to the employees of hospitals taken over in other states and ESI Corporation cannot take a different stand before this Court. They would refer to the chronology of events to establish that the claim was not barred by limitation. They would refer to various Judgments of the Supreme Court where principles have been laid down in the matter of seniority on absorption (which we will refer to later in this judgment). They also contend that it is not imperative that in every dispute relating to seniority all parties likely to be affected have to be on the party array as the Court can very well declare the principles upon which seniority should be determined even in their absence.

¶264

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶265

-26-

¶266

A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the Original Petitions filed by the ESI Corporation, on the ground that the affidavit in support thereof has not been executed by the petitioners themselves and that the affidavit has been executed instead by an officer who is not authorized to represent the petitioners. This submission has prompted an additional affidavit dated 22.10.2020 producing Ext.R2(d) which is the copy of a resolution of the ESI Corporation dated 26.7.1991 which is stated to be published in the Gazette of India dated 17.8.1991 authorising certain classes of officers to institute in the name of the corporation suits and other legal proceedings necessary in the interest of the Corporation and to defend any such proceedings instituted against the corporation in all Courts or Tribunals including those established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and generally to represent the ESI Corporation in courts and tribunals and to act, appear, make applications, plead and withdraw money on behalf of the corporation. In the light of exhibit R2(d) and in the light of the averments in the affidavit dated 22.10.2020 and the affidavit in support of the Original Petitions filed by the ESI Corporation, we do not think that the objection to the maintainability of the Original Petitions is sustainable. We accordingly reject the objection raised to the maintainability of the Original petitions filed by the ESI Corporation.

¶267

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶268

-27-

¶269

On a consideration of the arguments raised before us, we have

¶270

formulated the following questions for consideration: -

¶271

A. Was the Tribunal right in holding that the date of absorption will be the date on which the respective hospitals were taken over by the ESI Corporation?

¶272

B. Was the Tribunal right in holding that the claim raised by the applicants for seniority with reference to their service in the State Government prior to their absorption was barred by limitation with reference to Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act?

¶273

C. If the claim of the applicants for seniority with reference to their service under the State Government and prior to their absorption by the ESI Corporation is not barred by limitation; are they entitled to claim that their entire service under the State Government prior to their absorption must be reckoned for determining their seniority in the ESI Corporation?

¶274

D. Can any relief be granted to the absorbed staff on the issue of their seniority in the absence of those who may be affected on the array of parties ?

¶275

Re : Issue A

¶276

In order to determine whether the Tribunal was right in holding

¶277

that the date of absorption of the staff will be the date on which the

¶278

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶279

-28-

¶280

hospital in question was taken over by the ESI Corporation we have perused the judgment of this Court in W.P (C) No.30517/2011 (AnnexureA9 in Ext.P1) (though this judgment was set aside by the Division Bench on the finding that the lis had to be adjudicated at the first instance before the Central Administrative Tribunal), the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in OP (CAT) No.146/2015 which was filed challenging the order dated 26-02-2015 in OA No.1175/2013 (this O.A was the one adjudicated by the Tribunal after the Division Bench found that the lis had to be adjudicated at the first instance before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order dated 04-02-2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.207 & 208/2017 of the Supreme Court of India. It is not disputed before us that a Division Bench of this court through judgment dated 04-01-2016 in OP (CAT) No.146/2015 had held that the date of absorption of staff in so far as the Udyogamandal hospital would be the date on which that hospital was taken over by the ESI Corporation. In that case also the ESI Corporation had taken the stand that the date of absorption cannot be earlier than 04-032011. The Division Bench considered the matter in extenso and found that the date of absorption cannot be at divergence with the date of taking over of the hospital which was 06-11-2009. Though the learned counsel representing the ESI Corporation would strenuously urge that the fact situation in respect of Udyogamandal hospital was different from the fact situation in respect of the hospitals in Ezhukone and Paripally we are of the

¶281

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶282

-29-

¶283

view that the principle that can be easily culled out from the judgment of the Division Bench is that the date of absorption cannot be different from the date on which the hospital in question was taken over by the ESI Corporation. The judgment of this court in OP (CAT) No.146/2015 has merged with the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Civil Appeal Nos.207 & 208/2017 and we are therefore bound to follow the ratio of that judgment. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in following its earlier order in OA No.1175/2013 and holding that the date of absorption in so far as the Udyogamandal hospital will be 02-112009, Paripally hospital will be 16-04-2010 and the Ezhukone hospital will be 20-04-2010.

¶284

Re : Issue B

¶285

The Tribunal has found that the claim for seniority with reference to service in the State Government is barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with the said finding of the Tribunal. It appears that the applicants in OA No.282/2017 along with some others had filed OA No.157/2013 praying for the protection of their seniority as envisaged in Annexure-A2 which contained the draft terms of absorption. These draft terms clearly provided that seniority of an employee absorbed in the Corporation will be determined either from the date on which one holds the post of deputation or from the date on which one holds the post in equivalent grade on regular basis in the State service whichever is earlier.

¶286

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -30-

¶287

When that original application was pending, a draft seniority list was published by the ESI Corporation on 09-07-2013. This draft seniority list was challenged before the Tribunal in OA No.704/2013 and connected cases. That original application was disposed of on 01-08-2013 on the basis of the submission made before the Tribunal that the draft seniority will not be finalized without considering the claims of those who objected to it (please see Annexure-A11 in Ext.P1). Thereafter vide Annexure-A12 in Ext.P1 a revised draft seniority list was published on 09-01-2014 where the seniority in the State cadre was taken into consideration. After noticing that the grievances of those absorbed by the ESI Corporation had been substantially redressed by the issuance of the draft seniority list on 09-012014, O.A. No.157/2013 was also disposed of with a direction to finalize the draft seniority list within a period of 3 months and to undertake further promotions etc., based on such finalized seniority list (please see Annexure-A13 in Ext.P1). However, the final seniority list came to be issued denying to the applicants before the Tribunal seniority considering their prior service under the State Government. The applicants before the Tribunal, therefore, challenged the finalized seniority list by filing OA No.282/2017 (OP (CAT) No.51/2020 and OP (CAT) No.157/2020 arise out of this O.A). In so far as OP (CAT) No.17/2020 is concerned we notice that the original application in question (O.A 369/2018) was filed challenging the draft seniority list published on 27-03-2018 and in so far as OP (CAT)

¶288

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶289

-31-

¶290

No.183/2020 arising out of OA No.176/2017 is concerned we notice that, that the original application (OA No.176/2017) was filed claiming the benefit of Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010, the terms of which were stated to govern the seniority of the persons absorbed in the ESI Corporation (please see paragraph 15 of the additional reply statement filed in OA No.282/2017Ext.P6 in OP (CAT) No.51/2020). This being the position and since the persons who were absorbed in the ESI Corporation were before the Tribunal claiming the benefits of seniority and had filed the original applications either challenging the finalized seniority list or by claiming the benefit of Office Memorandum referred to above within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, we have no hesitation to hold that the finding of the Tribunal that the claim for seniority was barred by limitation is incorrect in law. We find that the original applications were filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶291

Re : Issue C

¶292

As already noticed, it is the admitted case of the ESI Corporation that the seniority of persons absorbed will be determined on the basis of the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010. In fact, the specific instructions which are stated to apply are contained in

¶293

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶294

-32-

¶295

paragraph 3.4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum. We extract hereunder

¶296

the provisions of paragraph 3.4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum in its entirety.

¶297

“3.4 - Seniority of persons absorbed after being on deputation

¶298

3.4.1 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for “Deputation/Absorption), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from –

¶299

the date he has been holding the post on deputation, (or)

¶300

- the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is earlier.

¶301

3.4.2 The fixation of seniority of an absorbee in accordance with the above principle will not, however, affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words, it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption.

¶302

3.4.3 In cases in which absorbees are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption.

¶303

3.4.4 It is also clarified that for the purpose of determining the equivalent grade in the parent department, the criteria contained in Office Memorandum No.14017/27/75-Estt.(D) Dated March 7, 1984, which lays down the criteria for determining analogous posts, may be followed.”

¶304

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶305

-33-

¶306

We also feel that useful reference can be made to paragraph 3.5 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum which may also be relevant in the case of persons who are transferred and absorbed directly without being on deputation. Paragraph 3.5 reads as follows:-

¶307

“3.5 Seniority of persons who are transferred and absorbed directly without being on deputation .

¶308

In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later, would be applicable also for persons who are transferred and absorbed directly without being on deputation i.e. where the recruitment rules provide for recruitment through absorption. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that, in such cases also the provision as contained in the O.Ms dated 29-05-1986 and 2703-2001 would be applicable i.e. the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on the regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is earlier.”

¶309

Learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation would contend that the provisions contained in the aforesaid office memorandum cannot be applied in this case since the persons absorbed were clearly aware that their seniority would count only from the date of absorption. Counsel also submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal and

¶310

others v. Lieutenant Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi

¶311

and others; (2000) 1 SCC 644 (on which considerable reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants before the Tribunal) has no application to the facts of the present case as that was a case where the Rules in question permitted absorption through deputation.

¶312

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -34-

¶313

They would submit that in the case of the ESI Corporation the Rules in question are those contained in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 (‘the 1959 Regulations’). They would contend that the instructions contained in paragraph 3.4 of the Office Memorandum referred to above can be applied only if the cadre in question could be created entirely through deputation. A perusal of Rule 3 of the 1959 Regulations shows that those Regulations also contemplate that the ESI Corporation may obtain the services of employees through deputation on such terms as may be settled by the Director-General in consultation with the Government or the local authority concerned. Regulation 24 also provides that in matters where no separate provision is made in the Regulation or where insufficient provision has been made, the Rules applicable from time to time in respect of Central Government Servants will apply subject to any modification that may be made by the Director-General with the approval of the Standing Committee. In view of the provisions in the Regulations and in view of the specific stand of the ESI Corporation as is discernible from their pleadings before the Tribunal (please see paragraph 15 of the additional reply statement filed in OA No.282/2017- Ext.P6 in OP (CAT) No.51/2020), we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of the Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010 will apply to determine whether the persons who were absorbed were entitled

¶314

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶315

-35-

¶316

to seniority with reference to service under the State Government.

¶317

It would be useful now consider the law laid down in Rooplal's case (supra). It was held: -

¶318

“19. …..... It is to be noted that the law in regard to the right of a deputationist to count his service for the purpose of seniority in the transferred department was settled as far back as in the year 1982 itself in the cases of R.S. Makashi [(1982) 1 SCC 379 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 77] and Wing Commander J. Kumar [(1982) 2 SCC 116 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 177 : (1982) 3 SCR 453] (if not earlier). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a deputationist, when his service is sought to be absorbed in the transferred department would certainly have expected that his seniority in the parent department would be counted. In such a situation, it was really the duty of the respondents, if at all the conditions stipulated in the impugned memorandum were applicable to such person, to have made the conditions in the memorandum known to the deputationist before absorbing his services, in all fairness, so that such a deputationist would have had the option of accepting the permanent absorption in the Delhi Police or not. The very fact that such steps were not taken shows that this memorandum was, in fact, never acted upon. Apart from the above question of equity, the appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of the above memorandum on the ground that the same violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. One of the grounds raised is that their vested right of counting the seniority in the deputed department, after absorption in an equivalent post, is arbitrarily taken away, if the memorandum in question is applicable to them. Therefore, they had prayed for a declaration that the memorandum be declared as ultra vires to the extent it offends their fundamental right.

¶319

20. The relevant part of the memorandum impugned in the writ petition referred to above, reads thus:

¶320

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶321

-36-

¶322

“Even in the type of cases mentioned above, that is, where an officer initially comes on deputation and is subsequently absorbed, the normal principles that the seniority should be counted from the date of such absorption, should mainly apply. Where, however, the officer has already been holding on the date of absorption in the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, it would be equitable and appropriate that such regular service in the grade should also be taken into account in determining his seniority subject only to the condition that at the most it would be only from the date of deputation to the grade in which absorption is being made. It has also to be ensured that the fixation of seniority of a transferee in accordance with the above principle will not effect any regular promotions made prior to the date of absorption. Accordingly it has been decided to add the following sub-para (iv) to para 7 of general principles communicated vide OM dated 22-12-1959:

¶323

‘(iv) In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for “transfer on deputation/transfer”), his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has so ever been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from—

¶324

— the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or

¶325

— the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is later.’ ”

¶326

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -37-

¶327

We must notice that in Rooplal's case also the Supreme Court was concerned with the terms of paragraph 3.4 of the Office Memorandum referred to above. However that at the relevant time when Rooplal's case was decided the last few words in paragraph 3.4.1 read as ' whichever is later'. However following the observation in Rooplal's case that the words 'whichever is later' actually takes away the benefits granted by the earlier part of the Rule, the word 'later' was replaced by the word 'earlier' through amendment carried out on 27-03-2001 with effect from 14-121999. The learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment in K. Madhavan and others v. Union of India and others; (1987) 4 SCC 566 which has been followed in Rooplal's case and the judgment in Attar Singh Kaushik v. Secretary/Commissioner, Transport Department and others ; (2008) 1 SCC 400 to establish that a person who came from another Department on deputation and is subsequently absorbed will be entitled to claim seniority in the deputed post as well.

¶328

Sri. Ajayakumar refers to Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P ; (2006) 8 SCC 129 to buttress his contention regarding the right of those absorbed. In that case it was held: -

¶329

“22. Seniority, as is well settled, is not a fundamental right. It is merely a civil right. (See Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 5 SCC 604 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 737] , SCC para 49 and

¶330

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶331

-38-

¶332

also Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa [(2003) 11 SCC 614 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 121] .)

¶333

23. The High Court evidently proceeded on the premise that seniority is a fundamental right and thereby, in our opinion, committed a manifest error.

¶334

24. The question which arises is as to whether the terms and conditions imposed by the State in the matter of absorption of Respondents 2 to 4 in the permanent service of the Ghaziabad Development Authority is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶335

25. The State was making an offer to the respondents not in terms of any specific power under the Rules, but in exercise of its residuary power (assuming that the same was available). The State, therefore, was within its right to impose conditions. The respondents exercised their right of election. They could have accepted the said offer or rejected the same. While making the said offer, the State categorically stated that for the purpose of fixation of seniority, they would not be obtaining the benefits of services rendered in the U.P. Jal Nigam and would be placed below in the cadre till the date of absorption. The submission of Mr Verma that the period for which they were with the Authority by way of deputation, should have been considered towards seniority cannot be accepted simply for the reason that till they were absorbed, they continued to be in the employment of the Jal Nigam. Furthermore, the said condition imposed is backed by another condition that the deputed employee who is seeking for absorption shall be placed below the officers appointed in the cadre till the date of absorption. Respondents 2 to 4 accepted the said offer without any demur on 3-9-1987, 28-111991 and 6-4-1987 respectively. ( emphasis is ours )

¶336

26. They, therefore, exercised their right of option. Once they obtained entry on the basis of election, they

¶337

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶338

-39-

¶339

cannot be allowed to turn round and contend that the conditions are illegal. (See R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683] , Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara [(1994) 2 SCC 642] and Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar [(2003) 2 SCC 721 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 200] ) Furthermore, there is no fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered in an autonomous body. The past services can be taken into consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain such benefit of past service.” ( emphasis is ours )

¶340

The facts in Indu Shekhar Singh (supra), as is evident are completely different. There the employees were clearly put on notice that they would not be entitled to count the service rendered by them prior to their absorption. The case was determined by applying the law of election. In the facts of the present case, the employees were informed through the terms of absorption that “Seniority of an employee absorbed in the Corporation will be determined as per Rules and instructions on the subject….” . As already noticed it is the specific case of the ESI Corporation that the Rules in question are those contained in the Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010. Mr Ajayakumar also places reliance on Mrigank Johri v. Union of India ; (2017) 8 SCC 256. We believe that Paragrpahs 31, 33 & 34 of that judgment are relevant. They read as follows: -

¶341

31. It is no doubt true that the OM dated 29-5-1986 as modified by OM dated 27-3-2001 did provide for the benefit of the previous service rendered in the cadre. This is in effect also the

¶342

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶343

-40-

¶344

ratio of the judgment in Sub-Inspector Rooplal case [SubInspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 213]. This would also be in conformity with the normal service jurisprudential view. However, it would be a different position if the absorbing department clearly stipulates a condition of giving willingness to sacrifice the seniority while preserving all other benefits for the absorbee (which are accepted) failing which the option was available to the absorbee to get himself repatriated to the parent department. The terms and conditions are categorical in their wording that the absorbees would be “deemed to be new recruits” and the previous service would be counted for all purposes “except his/her seniority in the cadre”. The appellant accepted this with open eyes and never even challenged the same. Their representations to give them the benefit of their past seniority was also turned down and thereafter also they did not agitate the matter in any judicial forum. The controversy was thus not alive and it was not open for them to challenge the same after a long lapse of period of time. In fact on the day of filing of the OM, any prayer to set aside the terms and conditions of absorption would have been clearly barred by time under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶345

32…….

¶346

33. Even otherwise, as noted above, since the appellants accepted the terms and conditions of absorption, they could not plead otherwise.

¶347

34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh case [Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 8 SCC 129 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1916] where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees had the option to exercise their right of election. The

¶348

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶349

-41-

¶350

entitlement was not under any rules but under what was called the residuary power.”

¶351

This again is a case where the persons absorbed were clearly on notice that their previous service would not be counted. The decision has no application in the facts of the present case.

¶352

Sri. Adarsh Kumar would, however, place reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Govinda Chandra Tiria v. Sibaji Charan Panda & ors; (2020) 3 SCC 803 to contend that where the transfers are strictly not in the public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all those appointed regularly to the grade in question on the date of absorption. We find that the judgment in Govinda Chandra Tiria (supra) turns on the fact that the persons who were absorbed were clearly put on notice that their absorption would be deemed to be new recruitment. There again the Supreme Court was concerned with the Office Memorandum referred to above. It was held that the words 'whichever is later' was modified to 'whichever is earlier' following the observations in Rooplal's case. After referring to the principles laid down in Rooplal and the Judgment in Mrigank Johri (supra) it was held that the case on hand before the Supreme Court was one where the employees concerned were put to notice that their absorption was deemed to be new recruitment. It was held that having accepted the absorption after knowing the conditions, the employee cannot be permitted thereafter turn around and

¶353

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶354

-42-

¶355

challenge the terms of absorption. It was also found that the absorption, in that case, was strictly not in the public interest, which is a condition precedent in terms of paragraph 3.4.3 of the Office Memorandum referred to above. It may be useful to extract paragraph 17 & 18 of the judgment in Govinda Chandra Tiria (surpa) : -

¶356

“17. In this behalf we may note OM NO. 20020/7/80ESTT(D), which,in para 2 sets out that when an officer initially comes on deputation, and is subsequently absorbed, the normal principle that seniority should be counted from the date of such absorption, should mainly apply. This was, however, subject to the caveat of the O.M. dated 22nd December, 1959, which states that if such a person is absorbed in an equivalent grade on a regular basis in the parent department, such regular services in the grade should also be taken into account in fixing his seniority subject to the condition that it would be from the date he had been holding the post on deputation or from the date he had been appointed on regular basis in the same or equivalent grade in his parent department “whichever is later”, which was amended to make it “whichever is earlier”.

¶357

18. Thus, normally the deputation would be counted, but this was further made subject to the caveat that in case the transfers are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption. It is the latter clause which will apply as this was not a case “strictly in public interest”.

¶358

In the facts of the present case we cannot but hold that the take over of the ESI hospitals in question was with the intention of providing better health care for those entitled to the benefit of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and the schemes framed thereunder and to ensure that proper care is

¶359

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶360

-43-

¶361

provided it was necessary for the ESI Corporation to absorb the staff working in those hospitals as well. We find it difficult to hold that such absorption was not in the public interest. Therefore, on an application of principles laid down in Rooplal’s (supra) case and also in paragraph 17 & 18 of Govind Chandra Tiara (supra) we hold that where the absorption was public interest, seniority must be reckoned in terms of paragraph 3.4 of Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010.

¶362

Re : Issue D

¶363

It has been strenuously urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation as well as by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 to 37 in O.P (CAT) 51 of 2020 that no relief can be granted to the absorbed staff on the issue of their seniority in the absence of those who may be affected on the array of parties. It is no doubt true that normally issues of seniority cannot be settled through judicial proceedings in the absence of the affected parties in the party array. Sri. Sajith Kumar has relied on V.P Shrivastava & ors v. State of M.P & ors ; (1996) 7 SCC 759 to contend that relief can be granted in certain circumstances even if all the affected parties are not on the array of parties. In V.P Shrivastava (supra) the decision of the Supreme Court in The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Sidhanti , (1974) 4 SCC 335 was applied and followed.

¶364

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶365

-44-

¶366

We find that the very same issue has engaged the attention of

¶367

the Supreme Court, recently in Vishal Ashok Thorat and Others v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Others ; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 886. Justice Ashok Bhushan, speaking for the Bench observed: -

¶368

35. Shri Shekhar Naphade refuting the above submission has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 601. This Court in the above case has rejected the submission that those who had scored march over the appellant in the seniority list having not been impleaded as respondents, no relief could have been granted to the appellant. Shri Naphade has relied on paragraph 36 of the judgment which is to the following effect:

¶369

“36. It was contended that those members who have scored a march over the appellant in 1974 seniority list having not been impleaded as respondents, no relief can be given to the appellants. In the writ petition filed in the High Court, there were in all 418 respondents. Amongst them, first two were Union of India and Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, and the rest presumably must be those shown senior to the appellant. By an order made by the High Court, the names of respondents 3 to 418 were deleted since notices could not be served on them on account of the difficulty in ascertaining their present addresses on their transfers subsequent to the filing of these petitions. However, it clearly appears that some direct recruits led by Mr. Chitkara appeared through counsel Shri Murlidhar Rao and had made the submissions on behalf of the direct. Further any application was made to this Court by nine direct recruits led by Shri T. Sudhakar for being impleaded as parties, which application was granted and Mr. P.R. Mridul, learned senior counsel appeared for them. Therefore, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and the

¶370

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶371

-45-

¶372

contention can be negatived on the short ground. However, there is a more cogent reason why we would not countenance this contention. In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Sidhanti, (1974) 4 SCC 335. Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in this case, this Court observed that the respondents (original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating the seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by anyone individual against

¶373

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶374

-46-

¶375

another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived.”

¶376

The judgment of this Court in A. Janardhana relied by Shri Naphade is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the above case, this Court was considering the challenge to the seniority list. This Court has noticed in paragraph 36 that the appellant had not claimed seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention was that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing already drawn up valid list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. This Court by making the above observation has repelled the submission that relief could not have been granted without impleading those who were affected in the seniority list. The claim pertaining to seniority may be laid on different grounds. There may be cases where seniority is claimed against individual person on specific facts, it might be necessary to implead those persons but there may be cases where non-impleadment of person in seniority dispute may not be fatal……………..”

¶377

(Emphasis is ours)

¶378

Mr. T.V. Ajayakumar has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

¶379

Court in Siraj v. High Court of Kerala; 2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC) to contend that no reliefs can be granted in the absence of those who are likely to be affected on the array of parties. Specific reference has been placed on

¶380

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -47-

¶381

paragraph 62 of that judgment. We notice from the facts of the case in Siraj (supra) that the issues arising in that case were in relation to fixation of a minimum mark in the interview and the filling up of reserved slots by others in the absence of candidates in the specified reserved category. That was a case of selection and not a case of seniority. It was not a case that could have been adjudicated in the absence of those who may be affected, as grant of relief in that case would have resulted in at least some among the selected candidates loosing their job. Such is not the situation in these cases. We are of the opinion that this is not a case where the seniority dispute needs to be settled on the basis of individual facts which needs to be controverted by the person against whom the claim is made. This is also a case where the issue of seniority has to be decided on the matter of principle and the Rules applicable to the persons absorbed by the ESI Corporation. We are clearly of the opinion that this is a case of the nature noticed by the Supreme Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A.V.R. Sidhanti, (supra) ; A. Janardhana v. Union of India and others; (1983) 3 SCC 601 & in paragraph 36 of Vishal Ashok Thorat (supra). Thus, we have no hesitation to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the ESI Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for respondent’s 7 to 37 in OP(CAT) 51 of 2020 that we should not determine the issues relating to seniority in the absence of all the necessary parties in the party array.

¶382

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶383

-48-

¶384

In the result OP (CAT) Nos.17/2020, 157/2020 & 183/2020 will stand dismissed. O.P (CAT) No.51/2020 will stand allowed holding and declaring that the seniority of the petitioners therein shall be determined with respect to the principles under paragraph 3.4 of Office Memorandum No.22011/7/86-Estt (d) dated 3rd July, 1986 and 11th November 2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

¶385

(Sd/-) A. M. SHAFFIQUE Judge

¶386

(Sd/-) GOPINATH P. Judge

¶387

AMG

¶388

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶389

-49-

¶390

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 17/2020

¶391

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶392

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.369/2018 DATED 12.4.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 T0 6 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT	P1(A1)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.542/A/24/13(2)/MHA/18(ADM)DATED 27.03.2018
EXHIBIT	P1(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF 2ND APPLICANT DATED 28.03.2018
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CAT DATED 28.11.2019 IN OA. NOS.180/627/2016, 180/673/2016,180/124/2017,180/168/2017,180/176/ 2017,180/282/2017,180/273/2018,180/276/2018,180 /364/2018,180/369/2018/180/769/2018
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN DATED 29.07.2019
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(A))	TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABSORPTION OIF ESI HOSPITAL,EZHUKONE WHICH WERE FORWARDED BY ESI HEADQUARTERS
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(B))	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-11/11/10/09 MED-VI DATED 13.06.2011
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 2ND APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(D))	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 1ST APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(E))	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 6TH APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(F))	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 4TH APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(G))	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 29.12.2011 GERMANE TO 7TH APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(H))	TRUE COPY OF THE A FORM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 3RD APPLICANT
EXHIBIT	P3(R2(I))	DATED 27.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTING THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION OF THE EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THE APPLICANTS
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 IN SLP NO.16694/2016.

¶393

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶394

-50-

¶395

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 51/2020

¶396

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶397

EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.282/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A14)	A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.542/A/24/13/MHA/15(ADM) DATED 07.02.2017 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC, KERALA REGION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A1)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.2/2010/LBR DATED 01.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A2)	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.138/2009/LBR DATED 15.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A3)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.773/F2/11/LBR DATED 26.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A4)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 16.04.2010.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A5)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A6)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2 OF 2011 DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A7)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.98/2012/LBR DATED 27.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A8)	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.30517/2011, 30518/2011, 30519/2011 AND 30520/2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A9)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.01.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A10)	A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.542/A/24/13(1) MHA/13ADM DATED 09.07.2013 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC HOSPITALS, KERALA REGION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶398

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶399

-51-

¶400

EXHIBIT	P1	(A11) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 IN O.A.NO.704/2013 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A12) TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.542/A/24/13(1) MHA/13ADM DATED 09.01.2014 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC HOSPITALS, KERALA REGION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P1	(A13) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 IN O.A.NO.157/2013 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.961/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 37 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT	P4	(R7(A)) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 IN M.A.NO.1210 OF 2015 AND 1102 OF 2016 IN O.A.NO.627 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P4	(R7(B)) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2017 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.282 OF 2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 37.
EXHIBIT	P5	(R7(C)) A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.
EXHIBIT	P6	(R2(A)) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2011 OF THE JOINT DIRECT (M.A.), ESIC HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, ADDRESSED TO THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ESIC HOSPITALS, PARIPPALLY, EZHUKONE, UDYOGMANDAL ETC. ALONG WITH THE TERMS OF ABSORPTION.

¶401

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶402

-52-

¶403

EXHIBIT P6 (R2(B)) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.544/A/11/11/EHP/10/ADM (ABSORPTION) DATED 14.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶404

EXHIBIT P6	(R2(C)) A TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION PROFORMA DATED 23.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(D)) A TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION PROFORMA DATED 26.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(E)) A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION TENDERED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 23.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(F)) A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION TENDERED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 26.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(G)) A TRUE COPY OF THE JOB CARDS OF THE STAFF NURSE AND NURSING SISTER IN ESIC.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(H)) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2018 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR (M.A.), ESI CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(I)) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.02.2019 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR (MED.INT.CELL) OF ESIC.
EXHIBIT P6	(R2(J)) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ADMN) ESICH, ASRAMAM WITH THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 IN O.A.NO.282/2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2017 IN W.P.NO.1596/2017 AND W.P.NO.5760-81/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.53/E/11/2/2019/RTI/VOL-III DATED 13.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. A- 11/12/15/2014/LEGAL/JAIPUR/CHI-6/INDIG DATED 06.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.68/2009/LBR DATED 25.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶405

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -53-

¶406

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14.01.2020 IN OP (CAT) 17/2020 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSCRIBED COPY.

¶407

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 54.A.22/15/10/2020 MED.ADM DATED 09.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶408

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶409

-54-

¶410

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 157/2020

¶411

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶412

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA 282/17 DATED 03.04.2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11 HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

¶413

EXHIBIT P1 (A14) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.542/A/24/13/MHA/15(ADM) DATED 07.02.2017 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC, KERALA REGION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (MS)NO.2/2010/LBR DATED 01.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS)NO.138/2009/LBR DATED 15.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.773/F2/11/LBR DATED 26.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 16.04.2010. EXHIBIT P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A6) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2 OF 2011 DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A7) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.98/2012/LBR DATED 27.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A8) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2012 IN WPC NO.30517/2011, 30518/2011, 30519/2011 AND 30520/2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P1 (A9) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.01.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P1 (A10) A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.442/A/24/13(1) MHA/13 ADM DATED 09.07.2013 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC HOSPITALS, KERALA, REGION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶414

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶415

-55-

¶416

EXHIBIT	P1 (A11)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 IN IA NO.704/2013 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A12)	TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.542/A/24/13(1) MHA/13 ADM DATED 09.01.2014 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES IN ESIC HOSPITALS, KERALA REGION ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P1 (A13)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 IN OA 157/2013 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED NIL JUNE, 2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN OA 282/17.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED NIL AUGUST, 2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN OA 282/17.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 24.09.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 37 IN OA 282/17.
EXHIBIT	P4 (R7(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMANENT ABSORPTION OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 05.07.2019 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN OA 282/17.
EXHIBIT	P5 (R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/.06.2011 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR (MAo ESIC HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, ADDRESSED TO THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ESIC HOSPITALS, PARIPPALLY, EZHUKONE,. UDYOGAMANDAL, ETC ALONG WITH THE TERMS OF ABSORPTION.
EXHIBIT	P5 (R2(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.544/A/11/11/EHP/10/ADM(ABSORPTION) DATED 14.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5 (R2(C)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION PROFORMA DATED 23.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5 (R2(D)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION PROFORMA DATED 23.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5 (R2(E)	A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION TENDERED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 23.12.2011.

¶417

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶418

-56-

¶419

EXHIBIT P5 (R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION TENDERED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 13.12.2011. EXHIBIT P5 (R2(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE JOB CARDS OF THE STAFF NURSE AND NURSING SISTER IN ESIC.

¶420

EXHIBIT P5 (R2(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2018 OF THE DY.DIRECTOR (MA) ESI CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P5 (R2(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.02.2019 OF THE DY.DIRECTOR (MED.INT.CELL) OF ESIC. EXHIBIT P5 (R2(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASST.DIRECTOR (ADMN)ESICH, ASRAMAM WITH THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF STAFF NURSES. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA 282/17 AND CONNECTED CASES.

¶421

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP(CAT) NO.17/2020.

¶422

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶423

-57-

¶424

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 183/2020

¶425

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶426

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/176/2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT.
ANNEXURE (A1)	TRUE COPY OF DRAFT TERMS OF ABSORPTION.
ANNEXURE(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.542/A/13 (1)/ADM DATED 09.07.2013.
ANNEXURE (A3)	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST NO.542.A27.21.MHA.08.ADM DATED 18.06.2010
ANNEXURE(A4)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH APPLICANT DATED 22.03.2014.
ANNEXURE(A5)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.545/A/22/11/CHE/2010-ADM(VOL0II)DATED 24.01.2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CAT DATED 28.11.2019 IN OA NO.S N180/627/2015, 180673/2016, 180/124/2017, 130/168/2017, 180/282/2017, 180/273,2018, 180/276/2018, 180/364/2018, 180/369/2018, 180/769/2018 AND 180/176/2017.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 03.07.2019.
ANNEXURE(R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABSORPTION OF ESI HOSPITAL, EZHUKONE WHICH WERE FORWARDED BY ESIC HEADQUARTERS OFFICE.
ANNEXURE (R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A/11/11/10/09 MED- VI DATED 13.06.2011.
ANNEXURE (R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 2ND APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE(R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 31.12.2011 GERMANE TO 1ST APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE(R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 30.12.2011 GERMANE TO 6TH APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 30.12.2011 GERMANE TO 4TH APPLICANT.

¶427

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020

¶428

-58-

¶429

ANNEXURE (R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 30.12.2011 GERMANE TO 7TH APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE A FROM DATED 30.12.2011 GERMANE TO 3RD APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R2(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 27.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTING THE TECHNICAL RESIGNATION OF THE EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THE APPLICANTS.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 IN SLP NO. 1047-10472/16
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF MA.NO. 436/2017 IN OA NO.176/2017 AS FILED BY THE APPLICANTS DATED 31.05.2017.
ANNEXURE (A6)	TRUE COPY OF THE FULL TEXT AND DECISION OF THE 134TH MEETING IN ITEM NO.8.
ANNEXURE(A7)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2010.
ANNEXURE(A8)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2009 ALONG WITH TERMS OF ABSORPTION.
ANNEXURE(A9)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF MA IN OA NO.180/176 OF 2017 DATED 08.06.2019.
ANNEXURE(A10)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.54.A22/15/2/2018 ADM DATED 31.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS DATED 08.07.2019 TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE ESI CORPORATION.
ANNEXURE(A11)	TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.NO. 20020/7/80-ESTT(D) DATED 29.05.1986 AND O.M.NO.20011/1/2000 ESTT(D) DATED 27.03.2001.
ANNEXURE (A12)	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.2/2010 LBR DATED 01.01.2010.
ANNEXURE(A13)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A- 33/12/3/2011 MED-IV DATED 12.06.2012 ALONG WITH ITS CONDITION.
ANNEXURE(A14)	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE ENTRY IN SERVICE BY THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS 9 TO 19 IN ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE.ASRAMAM.

¶430

O.P (CAT) Nos.17, 51, 157 & 183/2020 -59-

¶431

ANNEXURE (A15) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINE NO.U.11/12/MNISC/JAIPUR/1/2006-MED VI DATED 11.07.2008.

¶432

ANNEXURE(A16) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE ABSORBED STAFF NURSES IN ANDHERI NO. EMHA/MUMBAI.RECRUIT/ROASTER AND SENIORITY/900/2015 DATED 11-12-2015. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 16.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO EXHIBIT P7 REJOINDER. ANNEXURE(R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.03.2009 ISSUED BY THEN DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ESI CORPORATION TO SH.C.K.VISWANATHAN, SECRETARY(LABOUR) SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM, KERALA REGARDING TAKING OVER OF ESI HOSPITAL, PARIPALLY AND EZHUKONE.

T.R. Molly v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R. Molly 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs C.B.Lalithakumari

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Kerala - Vfpck Vs Ratheesh Chandran

Sidique Mannan Vs the State of Kerala

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Sushama N.

Anandhu Nanoo Udayanan Vs Union of India

Vyas G.Pushkin Vs Union of India