Delhi High Court - Orders
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Praveen Kumar & Ors on 6 August, 2021
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~11 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7910/2021
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Standing
Counsel along with Ms. Mansie
Jain and Mr. Shrey Chakraborty,
Advs.
versus
PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan and Prateek
Dhanda, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 06.08.2021 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.05.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.1545/2020.
1.1. The petitioner before us is, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).
2. This is ESIC's second round before this Court. 2.1. The first round culminated with the order dated 25.03.2021, passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C.) No.3869/2021. At that stage, ESIC along with another petitioner had approached this Court against the interim order dated 04.01.2021, passed by the Tribunal in the OA from which the impugned order has arisen i.e. OA No. 1545/2020.
W.P.(C) 7910/2021 1/4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.08.2021 02:29:372.2. This Court, via order dated 25.03.2021, requested the Tribunal to dispose of the main matter itself. Accordingly, the main matter i.e. OA No.1545/2020 was fixed for directions before the Tribunal, on 05.04.2021. 2.3. We are informed that, the matter was not listed before the Tribunal on 05.04.2021, as directed by this Court, but was listed before the concerned Bench on 06.04.2021.
2.4. We are further informed that, on that date, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had sought time to file a reply in the matter and, consequently, it was posted for hearing on 11.05.2021. The impugned order was passed on the said date i.e. 11.05.2021.
2.5. Evidently, in the interregnum, the petitioner/ESIC filed an interlocutory application i.e. M.A. No.1214/2021 for vacating the order dated 04.01.2020. This application was, thus, taken up for disposal on 11.05.2021.
2.6. The operative directions contained in the order dated 11.05.2021 read as follows:
"4. We are of the view that for the present, the promotions can be made on the basis of the seniority arranged according to the date of promotion or appointment as the case may be, referable to a particular year. In other words, the appointment of the persons made by way of direct recruitment or promotion in a particular year shall be arranged on the basis of the respective dates unless there exist any rule to the contrary. Under no circumstances, the persons who were appointed in the subsequent year, shall be placed above the persons who were appointed in the earlier years. The promotions made on the basis of the impugned order shall be subject to the outcome of the OA."W.P.(C) 7910/2021 2/4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.08.2021 02:29:37
3. Mr. Shlok Chandra, who appears for ESIC, says that, the impugned interim order is contrary to paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 689.
3.1. In other words, it is Mr. Chandra's contention that, the judgment in Megha Chandra's case would apply prospectively, and therefore, would ring fence the seniority list framed as per the year of vacancy, as against the date of appointment.
3.2. In effect, Mr. Chandra's contention is that the seniority list already framed prior to the decision in Megha Chandra's case, should abide by the decision rendered in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340.
4. To our minds, the directions issued by the Tribunal are pro tem, and can only subsist till the main matter [i.e. OA No.1545/2020] is decided. 4.1. As to whether the observations made in paragraph 39 of the judgment rendered in Meghachandra's case will apply to this case, is an aspect, which falls within the ken of the Tribunal, and a decision qua the same, we are sure will be taken, at the time of final adjudication in the matter. 4.2. At this stage, no interference is called for by us.
5. We are told that the matter is fixed before the Tribunal on 01.09.2021. 5.1. The concerned Bench of the Tribunal is, therefore, requested to take up the matter on that date, and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the earlier direction issued by this Court on 25.03.2021. 5.2. The parties will, therefore, complete pleadings before the next date of hearing fixed before the tribunal i.e. 01.09.2021.
W.P.(C) 7910/2021 3/4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.08.2021 02:29:375.3. Mr. Chandra will have liberty to furnish a copy of the order passed today to the counsel for the DoPT, who, we are told, has not filed, as yet, a reply on behalf of the DoPT, in OA No.1545/2020. 5.4. To hasten the process of completion of pleadings, the matter will be listed before the concerned Registrar of the Tribunal, on 13.08.2021.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
7. A copy of this order will be dispatched by the Registry of this Court to the Registrar of the Tribunal.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J AUGUST 6, 2021 rb Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 7910/2021 4/4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.08.2021 02:29:37