Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rahul Kumar vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 2 September, 2025
1 (OA No. 83/2021)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 25.07.2025
Pronounced on : 02.09.2025
OA No. 063/83/2021
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
1. Rahul Kumar, age 33 years S/o Sh. Purushottam
Kumar Sinha, working as Assistant O/o Medical
Superintendent, Employee's State Insurance
Corporation Model Hospital, Baddi, District Solan
(HP), R/o House No. 359, Housing Board, Phase-II,
Sai Road, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh Group C-
173205
2. Ranjeet Kumar, age 32 years S/o Sh. Shailendra
Sah, working as Assistant O/o Medical
Superintendent, Employee's State Insurance
Corporation Model Hospital, Baddi, District Solan
(HP), R/o House No. 92, Housing Board, Phase-III,
Sai Road, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh Group C.-
173205
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Sh. Barjesh Mittal)
VERSUS
1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation Head
Quarters Office Panchdeep Bhawan, C.I.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110002 through its Director General.
Email id: [email protected]
2. Deputy Director (Recruitment), Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, Head Quarters Office
Panchdeep Bhawan, C.I.G. Marg, New Delhi-
110002. Email id: [email protected]
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30'
2 (OA No. 83/2021)
3. Regional Director, Employee State Insurance
Corporation, Regional Office, Housing Board, Phase-
I, Sai Road, Baddi, HP. 173205 Email id: rd-
[email protected].
4. Medical Superintendent, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Model Hospital, Housing Board, Phase-
I, Sai Road, Baddi, HP. -173205. Email id: ms-
[email protected]
..............Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.K. Thakur)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) That the impugned seniority list of cadre of Assistant/Head Clerk circulated vide order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) be quashed and set aside and invalidated to the extent of placing the names of the applicants below their juniors who had qualified LDCE examination held on 09.06.2018.
(ii) That appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to correct the seniority list of cadre of Assistants by placing the names/seniority position of the applicants above the names/seniority position of their juniors who had been promoted subsequent on the basis of LDCE examination to the promotion of the applicants from the due date with all consequential benefits viz. consideration of their cases for further promotion to the cadre of Superintendent etc. in the interest of justice.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 3 (OA No. 83/2021)
2. The facts as encapsulated in the Original Application are that both the applicants were duly selected and appointed to the post of UDC under the Regional Office, ESIC, Baddi (H.P.) and joined in August 2012 under respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The posting orders dated 21.08.2012/24.08.2012 are appended as Annexure A-2.
3. That after their joining, the office of respondent No.3 issued seniority lists of UDCs of Himachal Region as on 30.06.2015 and subsequently as on 31.07.2016 vide communication dated 24.08.2016. In the said list, the name of applicant No.1 Sh. Rahul Kumar figures at serial No.15 and the name of applicant No.2 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar at serial No.19 (Annexure A-3).
4. That the next promotional post from the cadre of UDC is that of Assistant, which is governed by the ESIC (Head Clerk/Assistant) Recruitment Regulations, 1997 effective from 01.03.1997 (Annexure A-4). As per the said regulations, 75% of posts are to be filled by promotion on seniority-cum-fitness and 25% through LDCE from amongst UDCs with three years' regular service.
5. That applicant No.1 Sh. Rahul Kumar, being senior, was promoted as Assistant in PB-2 ₹9300-34,800 with GP NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 4 (OA No. 83/2021) ₹4200 under 75% quota vide Office Order No.8 dated 03.04.2017 and assumed charge on the same date (Annexure A-5).
6. That respondent No.2 thereafter issued letter dated 09.08.2017 regarding conduct of LDCE for various posts including Assistant for the vacancy years 2016-17 and 2017-18, directing Regional Directors to send lists of eligible candidates (Annexure A-6).
7. That pursuant to the said instructions, the office of respondent No.3 circulated the recruitment notice to all concerned through e-mail dated 18.08.2017 along with circular dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure A-7). In response, applicant No.2 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar submitted his application form dated 18.08.2017 for appearing in LDCE for Assistant for the vacancy year 2016-2017 (Annexure A-8). However, the application of applicant No.1 Sh. Rahul Kumar was not accepted on the ground that he was already promoted as Assistant on 03.04.2017 (Annexure A-5).
8. That applicant No.2 Sh. Ranjeet Kumar was thereafter promoted to the cadre of Assistant under 75% seniority NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 5 (OA No. 83/2021) quota vide Office Order No.34 dated 23.03.2018 on the recommendations of the DPC (Annexure A-9).
9. That respondent No.2 issued communication dated 13.04.2018 prescribing the schedule and scheme of LDCE for Assistants for 2016-17 and 2017-18, scheduling the examination for 26.05.2018 which was rescheduled to 09.06.2018. Subsequently, vide letter dated 02.05.2018, the crucial date of eligibility was shifted from 1st April to 1st January (Annexure A-10 colly).
10. That applicant No.2 did not receive his admit card and accordingly addressed an e-mail dated 08.06.2018 to respondent No.3. In reply, the office of respondent No.3 informed him vide e-mail (Annexure A-11) that in view of HQ letter dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure A-12), employees already working as regular Assistants were not eligible to appear in the LDCE. Thus both applicants were denied the opportunity to appear in the said examination.
11. That the result of LDCE was declared on 24.12.2018 (Annexure A-13) wherein juniors to the applicants were NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 6 (OA No. 83/2021) declared successful and were promoted as Assistants for the vacancy year 2016-17.
12. That subsequently the office of respondent No.3 issued a draft seniority list of Assistants/Head Clerks on 13.11.2019 (Annexure A-14). In the said draft list, the juniors who had cleared LDCE were shown senior to the applicants, who were reflected as promoted for the year 2017-18.
13. That both applicants submitted objections dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure A-15), but the same were rejected vide communication dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure A-16) on the ground that juniors had qualified LDCE for 2016-17 and were rightly placed above them. Thereafter the applicants submitted representation dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure A-17) seeking supply of the final seniority list. In response, respondent No.3 issued impugned communication dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) forwarding the final seniority list to respondent No.4, which the applicants received on 29.10.2020. The final list was identical to the draft and wrongly placed juniors above the applicants.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 7 (OA No. 83/2021)
14. It is submitted by the applicants in the Original Application that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal since the applicants were denied opportunity to appear in LDCE in view of HQ circular dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure A-12). Hence their juniors cannot claim seniority over them.
15. The applicants relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Others vs. Ningam Siro & Others, 2020 (1) SCT 93, wherein it has categorically been held that seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to entry in the cadre. The applicants having been promoted earlier vide orders dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure A-5) and 23.03.2018 (Annexure A-9), their juniors could not have been placed above them in the seniority list.
16. That respondent No.1 thereafter issued letter dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure A-18) seeking details of Assistants up to 2016 for DPC to the post of Superintendent. However, due to wrongful placement of juniors above the applicants in the seniority list dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-1), the names of the applicants NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 8 (OA No. 83/2021) are not being forwarded, thereby denying them further promotion.
17. The applicants submit that the action of the respondents in placing juniors above the applicants in the final seniority list dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Hence, this OA.
18. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicants by filing a written statement.
19. It is submitted by the respondents that no order can be passed against a person without affording them an opportunity of being heard, and any such order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is not binding. Further, as per Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, impleadment of necessary parties is mandatory and non-joinder of necessary parties renders the proceedings liable to fail. Reliance is placed on judicial precedents including Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 167), Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh (1995 Supp 1 SCC 179), Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal ((2009) 1 SCC 768), State of Assam v. Union of India ((2010) 10 SCC NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 9 (OA No. 83/2021)
408) and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht (AIR 2010 SC 2613).
20. It is submitted by the respondents that applicant Rahul Kumar joined ESIC, Regional Office, Baddi as UDC through direct recruitment on 24.08.2012 and applicant Ranjeet Kumar joined on 21.08.2012. Both were promoted as ad hoc Assistants on 19.07.2016 and are presently posted at ESIC, MH, Baddi. Rahul Kumar was promoted as regular Assistant through DPC on 03.04.2017 and Ranjeet Kumar was promoted as regular Assistant through DPC on 23.03.2018 for the vacancy year 2017-18.
21. It is further submitted by the respondents that the LDCE for promotion to the post of Assistant against 25% quota for the vacancy year 2016-17 was held on 09.06.2018. As per ESIC policy issued by Hqrs. vide letter No. A- 36/14/01/2017-Exam dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure R-
1), employees already working as regular Assistants were not eligible to appear in LDCE. Accordingly, only non-regular Assistants could apply. Six candidates qualified the said examination and were placed in NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 10 (OA No. 83/2021) seniority for 2016-17 as per the rota-quota policy under Recruitment Regulations of Assistant Cadre.
22. It is also submitted by the respondents that as per Recruitment Regulations, 75% of vacancies in the cadre are filled by promotion on the basis of seniority through DPC and 25% by LDCE on merit basis confined to UDCs/UDC Cashiers with three years of regular service. Inter se seniority of DPC promotees and LDCE promotees is determined by rotation of vacancies based on quota prescribed in the Regulations. The eligibility for appearing in LDCE is reckoned from the date notified in the examination memorandum.
23. It is finally submitted by the respondents that the applicants have not challenged the policy decision contained in Annexure R-1 which is adverse to their interest. Having accepted the legality of the same, they cannot challenge the consequential seniority list, Annexure A-1. Therefore, on the principle of estoppel, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed as being without merit.
24. The applicants have also filed a rejoinder reiterating their stand as has been taken in the Original Application. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 11 (OA No. 83/2021)
25. The applicants further submit in the Rejoinder that they are challenging the seniority list of Assistants/Head Clerks issued on 24.09.2020 (A-1), in which despite being promoted as Assistants on 03.04.2017 and 23.03.2018 (A-5 & A-9), they have been wrongly placed below their juniors. This is against law and DoPT OMs, and the official respondents already impleaded are the only necessary parties.
26. They further submit that with regard to eligibility for LDCE, the applicants were wrongly denied admit cards though they were eligible and had applied in response to communication dated 09.08.2017 (A-6). The denial was based on communication dated 27.04.2018 (A-12), which prohibited regular employees from appearing. Later, ESIC Headquarters, vide communication dated 08.06.2021 (A-19), withdrew the restrictive UO Note of 30.08.2012, thereby confirming that the applicants had been wrongly debarred from LDCE.
27. On the issue of seniority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh vs. Ningam Siro, 2020(1) SCT 93 has held that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee was not borne in service. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 12 (OA No. 83/2021) Following this, the DoPT issued OM dated 13.08.2021 (A-20), which lays down that inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be reckoned from the year of actual appointment in the cadre. Since the applicants were promoted under the 75% quota on 03.04.2017 and 23.03.2018 (A-5 & A-9), they are senior to juniors who were appointed under the 25% LDCE quota only on 24.12.2018 (A-21). Thus, the seniority list dated 24.09.2020 is liable to be quashed and revised by placing the applicants above their juniors.
28. It is further submitted in the Rejoinder that the provisions of Recruitment Regulations are admitted as record, but their interpretation has already been settled by the Supreme Court judgment in Meghachandra case and by DoPT OM dated 13.08.2021, which clearly support the applicants.
29. The respondents' plea that communication dated 27.04.2018 (R-1) was a policy decision is incorrect, as it was only a schedule of LDCE. Furthermore, ESIC Headquarters has already re-examined and withdrawn the restrictive UO Note of 30.08.2012 vide communication dated 08.06.2021 (A-19) with approval NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 13 (OA No. 83/2021) of Respondent No.1. Therefore, the objections raised by the respondents have no merit.
30. In response to the above rejoinder, the respondents have filed an additional written statement wherein they submitted that U.O. Note No. A-33/19/1/2003-Estt. II dated 30.08.2012 is withdrawn vide Headquarters Office letter dated 08.06.2021. However, seeking relief retrospectively on the basis of instructions issued vide Headquarter office letter dated 8.6.2021 is jot justifiable and the relief on the basis of Headquarters Office instruction dated 8.6.2021 was given prospectively and DoP&T OM dated 1.8.2021, para No. 7 sub para No. (iii) stipulated that "in case of direct recruits and promotes appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 and in which case inter se seniority could not be finalized by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of OMs dated 07.02.1986/03.07.1986 read with OM dated 04.03.2014, unless where a different formulation/manner of determination of seniority has been decided by any Tribunal or Court.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 14 (OA No. 83/2021)
31. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
32. The admitted position is that applicant No.1 was promoted as Assistant on 03.04.2017 and applicant No.2 was promoted on 23.03.2018 against the 75% quota of promotion through DPC. On the other hand, their juniors were still working as UDCs at that point of time and came to be promoted only after qualifying the LDCE held on 09.06.2018, the result of which was declared on 24.12.2018.
33. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Others vs. Ningam Siro & Others (2020) 1 SCT 93, which has since been followed by the DoPT in its O.M. dated 13.08.2021, is that seniority cannot be claimed from a date prior to actual entry into the cadre. Thus, juniors who were appointed as Assistants only in December 2018 cannot, by any interpretation, rank senior to the applicants who were already borne in the cadre in 2017-18.
34. It is also not in dispute that the applicants were denied the opportunity to participate in the LDCE for the vacancy year 2016-17 in view of Headquarters letter NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 15 (OA No. 83/2021) dated 27.04.2018, which barred regular Assistants from appearing. That restriction has subsequently been reviewed and withdrawn by ESIC Headquarters vide communication dated 08.06.2021, thereby fortifying the grievance of the applicants that they were wrongly debarred. The juniors cannot be permitted to derive an undue benefit from a policy later found unsustainable.
35. As regards rota-quota, while the Recruitment Rules provide for allocation of vacancies between DPC and LDCE quotas, such rotation cannot override the settled law declared by the Supreme Court. Once it is held that seniority is to be reckoned from the date of actual appointment, the rota-quota rule cannot be invoked to place juniors above those who were already appointed earlier.
37. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the seniority list dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) is unsustainable to the extent it places the juniors of the applicants, promoted through LDCE in December 2018, above them. The impugned list is accordingly quashed and set aside.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30' 16 (OA No. 83/2021)
38. The respondents are directed to recast the seniority of Assistants/Head Clerks by placing the applicants above their juniors, strictly in conformity with law as laid down in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and DoPT instructions dated 13.08.2021. Consequential benefits, including consideration for further promotion to the post of Superintendent, shall also follow. Such exercise may be carried out within two months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
39. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
40. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.09.17 14:29:22+05'30'