Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Neelesh Raghorte vs M/O Labour on 6 August, 2018
1 OA No.201/00812/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING : INDORE
Original Application No.201/00812/2016
Indore, this Monday, the 06th day of August, 2018
HON'BLE MR. NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Nilesh Raghorte, s/o Shri Ramdas Raghorte, Age 41 years, O.T.
Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o 398/17, Nandanagar, Indore
452011.
2. Vijay Kumar, s/o Shri Satyanarayan Yadav, Age 34 years,
C.S.S.D. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o 5/18, Type II,
Doctors' Colony, Nandangar, Indore 452011.
3. Mitul Fadia, s/o Shri Ramesh Fadia, age 31 years, C.S.S.D.
Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o 419, Goyal Avenue,
Nipania, Indore 452008.
4. Harish Pal, s/o Shri Nandkishore Pal, age 36 years, C.S.S.D.
Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o Gram Lasudia Parmar, Post
Dakachya, A.B. Road, Indore 452008.
5. Naredra Bhargava, s/o Shri Sukhram Bhargava, age 34 years,
C.S.S.D. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o G-3, Doctors'
Colony, Indore 452008.
6. Lakhan Lal Vani, s/o Shri B.L. Vani, age 47 years, O.T.
Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o A-16, Panchdeep Nikunj,
Nandanagar, Indore 452011.
7. Rajesh Kumar Koshisha, s/o Late Shri Balkishan Koshika, age
42 years, O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o 103,
Budhwariya, Valabh Bhai Patel Marg, Ujjain 456006.
8. Balwant Singh Panwar, s/o Shri Kamla Singh Panwar, age 39
years, O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o B-33, ESIC
Nikunj, Nehru Nagar, Indore 452008.
Page 1 of 18
2 OA No.201/00812/2016
9. Shailendra Lambade, s/o Late Shri Laxman Rao Lambade, age
36 years, O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o 79/81, Suyesh
Vihar, Behind ESIC Model Hospital, Nandanagar, Indore 452011.
10. Shivnarayan Parmar, s/o Shri Ganpat Parmar, Age 41 years,
O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o A-5, Panchdeep
Nikunj, Nandanagar, Indore 452011.
11. Takeshwar Ram Dhruw, s/o Shri Baloodram Dhruw, age 44
years, O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o A-2, ESIC
Nikunj, Nehru Nagar, Indore 452008.
12. Dinesh Gendalal Raikwar, s/o Shri Gendalal Raikwar, age 43
years, O.T. Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o B-38, ESIC
Nikunj, Nehru Nagar, Indore 452008.
13. Ramchandra Jatav, s/o Shri Hariram Jatav, age 37 years, O.T.
Technician, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o C-10, Panchdeep Nikunj,
Nandanagar, Indore 452011.
14. Narayan Singh Chouhan, s/o Shri Narpat Singh Chouhan, age
38 years, C.S.S.D Technicna, ESIC Model Hospital, r/o A-4, ESIC
Nijunj, Nehru Nagar, Indore 452008
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri P.J. Mehta)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Director General, ESIC Head Quarter, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG
Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
3. The Medical Superintendent, Employees State Corporation
Model Hospital and Disease Centre, Nandanagar, Indore - 452011.
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Rishi Agrawal)
Page 2 of 18
3 OA No.201/00812/2016
ORDER
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.
The applicants have preferred this Original Application challenging the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 (corresponding pay scale 5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2400/- in 6th CPC) from the date of their recruitment/promotion as O.T Assistant. They are also seeking the benefit of orders passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Original Applications Nos.2995 & 2996/2014 dated 19.04.2016.
2. The applicants have, therefore, sought for the following reliefs:
"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant to Applicants pay scale of 4000- 6000 (corresponding pay scale 5200-20200 + GP 2400/- in VIth Pay Commission) from the respective date of their recruitment/promotion as O.T. Assistant with all consequential benefits with effect from their respective dates of entitlement.
8.2 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant to Applicants the arrears of their revised pay scales from the date of their entitlement. 8.3 Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed necessary, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.4 Award costs of this Application."
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicants Nos.1 to 5 were appointed directly on the post of O.T. Assistant during Page 3 of 18 4 OA No.201/00812/2016 2001 to 2010 in ESIC Hospital in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75- 3950-80-4590 (Annexure A-2 colly.), whereas applicants Nos.6 to 14 were appointed directly appointed on the post of Nursing Orderly in ESIC Hospital in 2002 in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55- 2660-60-3200 (Annexure A-3 colly.).
4. Applicant No.1 was promoted to the post of O.T. Technician in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 vide order dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure A-4). The applicants Nos.6 to 13 were promoted to the post of O.T. Assistant on 16.03.2009 (Annexure A-5) with retrospective effect from 11.08.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.5200- 20200 with Grade Pay Rs.1900/-. Applicants Nos.6 to 13 were further promoted to the post of O.T. Technician on 25.07.2014 (Annexure A-7 colly.). Applicant No.14 was promoted to the post of C.S.S.D. Technician on 25.07.2014 (Annexure A-8) in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2400/-. On 15.07.2015, the applicants Nos.2 to 4 were promoted to the post of C.S.S.D. Technician in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2400/-, whereas applicant No.5 has been promoted to the post of C.S.S.D in the same pay scale on 01.06.2016. Copy of their promotion orders are filed as Annexure A-9 collectively. Page 4 of 18 5 OA No.201/00812/2016
5. It has been submitted that in ESIC Hospital, post of O.T. Assistant, C.S.S.D. Assistant, C.S.R. Assistant, Plaster Assistant & Laboratory Assistant are having identical service conditions. The Government of India, issued a Gazette notification of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 on 30.09.1997 (Annexure A-
10), wherein under Part-B of First Schedule, different pay scale of 5000-8000 was sanctioned to O.T. Technician and the pay scale of 4000-6000 was sanctioned to other Technician, having matriculation with some experience.
6. The applicants submit that when the new pay scale of Rs.4000-6000, was not given to some of the O.T. Assistants/Technicians & C.S.S.D. Assistants of different ESIC Hospitals of Delhi, they preferred Original Applications Nos.2995/2014 and 2996/2014 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which were allowed in their favour on 19.04.2016 (Annexure A-1). The respondents therein have complied with the order of the Principal Bench on 15.06.2016 (Annexure A-11). It has been further submitted that some identically placed employees of ESIC Hospital, Mumbai also filed Original Application No.4/2016, which was disposed of on 15.01.2016 (Annexure A-12) directing the respondents therein to decide their representation in Page 5 of 18 6 OA No.201/00812/2016 the light of the order passed in OA No.260/2015. Further, the Principal Bench has also allowed Original Applications Nos.1114/2008 and 3221/2010 preferred by similarly paced employees of ESIC.
7. The applicants aver that relying on the order passed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in OA 04/2016, the applicant submitted their representation to respondent No.3 on 23/24.02.2016 (Annexure A-15 collectively). However, the same has been rejected on 25/30.06.2016 & 19/20.07.2016 (collectively Annexure A-17) on the ground that the ESIC Head Quarter has not issued any direction to pay such pay scale as per direction of the Tribunal.
8. The main grounds of the applicants are that their pay fixation is erroneous and they are subjected to financial loss due to wrong fixation of their pay, which is in violation of fundamental right. Secondly, the dispute involved in this Original Application, has already been adjudicated by the Principal Bench in OA Nos.2995/2014 & 2996/2014. The Principal Bench has also allowed OA No.1114/2008 and OA No.3221/2010 in favour of similarly placed employees of ESIC.
Page 6 of 18 7 OA No.201/00812/2016
9. The respondents have filed their reply and have submitted that the applicants are not entitled for the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 since the said pay scale was provisionally granted only to the applicants of OA Nos.2995/2014 & 2996/2014. It has been further submitted that against the order passed by the Principal Bench in Original Application No.1464/2003 dated 13.01.2004 (Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.), the respondents have filed Writ Petition No.18/2015, which is pending for adjudication.
10. The respondents have further submitted that as per Annexure A-1, the pay scale/revision pertains to Central Public Sector Employees following CDA pattern. However, the ESIC is an autonomous body functioning under Ministry of Labour and Employment. The salary and allowances and other conditions of service of the member/staff of the Corporation is specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules & orders applicable to the offices and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scale of pay under section 17(2) of ESIC Act.
11. Regarding OA No.04/2016 of the Bombay Bench, it has been submitted by the respondents that the respondents therein Page 7 of 18 8 OA No.201/00812/2016 were directed only to decide the pending representations of the applicants and the Tribunal has not given any direction to the respondents in respect of any of higher pay scale. Since the ESIC Headquarters office has not directed to grant the higher pay allowances to the respondents, therefore, no such benefit can be extended to the applicants, as the revision of pay scale of employees of ESI Corporation is to be taken by ESIC Headquarters office at New Delhi.
12. The respondents have also submitted that the O.A is barred by limitation, as the claim of the applicants pertains to the recommendation made by 5th CPC, which came into force in the year 1996 and even prior to appointment of some of the applicants. Further, the duties and responsibilities of the applicants are totally different and cannot be compared to the present CSSD. It has also been submitted by the respondents that it is the law of the land that when the matter is pending before the higher forum than judicial propriety must be observed and no further orders must be granted as it would be a great loss for the respondents to recover the amount from the applicants if the benefits are extended to the applicants provisionally.
Page 8 of 18 9 OA No.201/00812/2016
13. The applicants have filed rejoinder and have reiterated their earlier stand. It has been submitted that Section 17(2) of ESI Act, 1948 (Annexure A-20) contemplates that method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay. Meaning thereby, that the Pay Commission recommendations, which are accepted by the Central Government for its employees, are also being adopted and implemented by the Corporation for its employees. Annexure A-10 provides that on the recommendation of High Power Pay Committee and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.05.1990, DPE had issued OM No.2(43)/90-DPE (WC) dated 12.06.1990 implementing the Central Government pay scales to the employees of Public Sector Enterprises following CDA pattern.
14. The applicants have also submitted that the respondents have accepted that the pay scale in question has been extended to other similarly situated persons subject to outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. They have further Page 9 of 18 10 OA No.201/00812/2016 submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, has observed that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay, as it does not affect the right of third parties. Therefore, the limitation does not come in the way of the O.A.
15. The applicants have stated that this Tribunal in Original Applications Nos.42 & 43 of 2011 (Rashmi & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) vide order dated 22.12.2013, has allowed the similar cases. The respondents have challenged the orders of this Tribunal by filing W.P. No.14095/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Prades, Bench at Indore, which has been disposed of by observing that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall be subject to the order as may be passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. No.9512/2009. It has been averred that the respondent No.3 has issued Office Order dated 22.04.2014 (Annexure A-22), whereby the fixation of pay of the applicant in OA No.43/2011, has been done in revised pay scale. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.18/2015 has also directed the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the Principal Page 10 of 18 11 OA No.201/00812/2016 Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.3227/2011 subject to final outcome of the W.P.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
17. It is seen from the pleadings itself that on the similar and same subject, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai and also this Bench, have passed the various orders and have followed the orders dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Principal Bench in Original Applications Nos.2995 & 2996/2014. It is also seen that recently the Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A No.3567/2016 (Poonam Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) has passed the order on 31.05.2018, placing reliance on its earlier order passed in OA No.3227/2011 dated 19.12.2013 (Brham Pal vs. Union of India and Others). The Principal Bench has considered this issue in detail and has held as under:
(6). In the backdrop of the above referred rival submissions, it is necessary to first examine the decisions of this Tribunal and issue of granting of the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the technical posts, as per the 5th CPC recommendations. In Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra), the applicants were ECG Technicians of ESI Corporation and were appointed as such in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 in 2007 and their plea in the said OA was that in all Central Page 11 of 18 12 OA No.201/00812/2016 Government Hospitals and Hospitals of Government of NCT of Delhi, the ECG Technicians were given the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- as per the 5th CPC recommendations and subsequently consequent upon the implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations, their pay was revised to Rs.9300-
34800/- with GP of Rs.4200/- (PB-2) but though the applicants therein were also working as ECG Technicians and discharging the same duties and responsibilities, their pay was fixed at Rs.4000-6000 only. A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the said OA both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits as under:-
"6. Here, we are swayed by two facts. In the first instance, this OA has been filed on 10.04.2015 while the claim relates to the arrears from 01.01.1996 in respect of 5th CPC and from 01.01.2006 in respect of 6th CPC in which years the applicants were not even born on the service as they joined the service only in the year 2007....."
Following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, 1995 (4) SCC 683, Union of India & Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar 2010 (2) SCC 59 and S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 10, it was also held as under:-
"Therefore, we hold that making a claim as retrospective as the one either from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006 even when the applicants were not born on the cadre is certainly barred by limitation".
The Coordinate Bench with regard to merits of the case, observed as under:-
"9. However, we have also considered the claim of the applicants on merit. We are of the view that the convenient way to deal with the issue is to examine the qualifications/pay scales of the post as given in the advertisement, which are as follows:-
"ECG Technicians Essential:Page 12 of 18 13 OA No.201/00812/2016
(a) (i) Science Graduate preferably with one year experience of handling E.C.G. Machine;
(ii) Matric or equivalent qualification from a recognized Board with one year's experience of handling E.C.G. Machine;
(b) Age note exceeding 32 years.
Pay Scale: Rs.4000-6000/-."
10. The applicants have applied with their eyes open and being fully aware that Matric was the minimum educational qualification and, therefore, at this point of time they cannot turn around and say that they are over qualified and as such they should be placed in higher pay scale........
11. We have also taken note of the fact that only six applicants in the cadre of ECG Technicians are graduates and rest are non- graduates. The applicants are seeking equity with others who have different recruitment rules and criteria of recruitment, which prayer cannot be acceded to as the equivalence could only be drawn in case of equals and in none others...." The Bench distinguished Brham Pal's case (supra) and observed as under:-
"12. We have also taken note of the two decision of this Tribunal relied upon by the applicants. In Brham Pal's case (supra) the applicants were Plaster Assistants whereas in the instant case the applicants are ECG Technicians, therefore, no equivalence could be drawn. In Shri Narender Kumar & Others V/s. Union of India & Ors.(supra) again there are dissimilarities of facts because the applicants therein were Radiographer whereas the applicants herein are ECG Technicians. Therefore, we find that no much force is forthcoming from the afore two decisions to help the case of the applicants".
(7). In Brham Pal's case (supra), another Coordinate Bench in which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar) is a Member, the applicants were Plaster Assistants in different ESI Corporations/Hospitals and who were given the scale of Rs.3200- 4900 by the 5th CPC claimed the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 on par with other technical posts. The said OA was allowed by rejecting the submissions of the respondents Page 13 of 18 14 OA No.201/00812/2016 therein with regard to the limitation and also on merits and the relevant paragraphs read as under:-
"5. We have heard both the sides and perused the documents placed on record. With regard to limitation, the law is well established that the matter of granting pay scale is a continuing cause of action and we have no hesitation in rejecting this plea of the respondents. As per the averment of the applicants they started representing to the respondents immediately after grant of the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900, which has not been denied by the respondents. Representations were submitted by the applicants in the year 1999, 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2010 but the matter was not decided by the respondents till the applicants filed OA no.3138/2010. As such, the principle of estoppel cannot be applied in this case. The applicants had parity with Laboratory Assistants/Nurse D grade/Auxiliary Nurse and midwife till 4th Pay Commission and they were given identical pay scale of Rs.975-1540 by the 4th CPC. The 5th Pay Commission maintained that parity and recommended a common scale of Rs.3200-4900. The problem arose when subsequently vide Government notification dated 30.09.1997, the scale was upgraded to Rs.4000-6000 and the same was not implemented for the PAs. There is no averment as to why the respondents decided to discard the parity with Nurse 'D' grade and Auxiliary Nurse and midwife from that point in time onwards. The Resolution dated 30.09.1997 through which the recommendations of the 5th CPC were given effect to, states as follows:-
"XXII OTHER TECHNICIANS
(a) Posts requiring Matriculation with 4000-100-6000 52.111 some experience as minimum qualification for direct recruitment".
6. Respondents have taken the plea that since there is a component of promotion in the grade of PA from the feeder grades of Nursing orderly/stretcher bearer/ dresser/aya where no minimum qualification has been prescribed, the aforesaid recommendation of the 5th CPC as notified in the resolution dated 30.09.1997 cannot be applied. This is highly specious argument for various reasons. The scale attached to a post is a function of job content, degree of hardship, risk etc. involved in discharging the duties. The academic qualification and experience is fixed keeping the competence level required from the persons who will be occupying the posts. If the employer has taken a view that the same competence level can be achieved by a recruit by having matriculation and one years experience in the case of direct recruitment, or 5 years experience for matriculates and 7 years experience for non- Page 14 of 18 15 OA No.201/00812/2016 matriculates in case of promotion, there does not appear to any further scope for discrimination in the matter of remuneration. As the employer in this case has already taken care to enhance the experience level to 5 years and 7 years respectively for promotion of matriculate and nonmatriculate nursing orderly etc. it does not stand to logic that the entire cadre of PA should be given a lower pay scale for this reason alone. The hollowness of the logic put forward by the respondents gets further exposed if we consider the fact that the cadre where there is no promotion and the appointment is only by direct recruitment, a candidate with matriculation and one year experience will be eligible for higher grade of Rs.4000-6000 but a mixed cadre of direct recruit and promotees (with 5 to 7 years experience) as a whole will be downgraded to a lower pay scale. This is obviously a discrimination.
7. This Tribunal in the case of Laboratory Assistants has already taken a view in favour of admissibility of scale of Rs.4000-6000 and the respondents have implemented it provisionally subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, we are not linking up the order in this OA with the order of this Tribunal in respect of Laboratory Assistants". (8). Firstly, we deal with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents about the conflicting views expressed by different Coordinate Benches on an identical issue and the need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. There is no quarrel with the settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal Vs Lt. Governor (2000) 1 SCC 644, that when a Bench consisting of equal strength does not agree with the view already expressed by another Coordinate Bench, it has to refer the OA in hand to a Larger Bench. But such a situation arises only when a Coordinate Bench of equal strength is not agreeing with the decision of another Coordinate Bench. In Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra), the applicants were ECG Technicians covered by specific staff recruitment rules and claimed the pay scale of Page 15 of 18 16 OA No.201/00812/2016 Rs.5000-8000/- on par with certain equivalent technical posts of the Government of India. The Coordinate Bench, while dismissing the OA itself considered Brham Pal's case (supra), as observed above, and categorically distinguished that Brham Pal's case (supra) was filed by Plaster Assistants and hence no equivalence could be drawn with Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra). So once in Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra), the Coordinate Bench which decided the said case, itself holding that it has no relevance with Brham Pal's case (supra), the respondents cannot contend that a Coordinate Bench has taken a contrary view to Brham Pal's case (supra). Therefore, in view of the specific observation in Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra), the question of differing with the view expressed in Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra) and to refer the instant OA to a Larger Bench does not arise.
(9). Similarly, the decision in Shri Puneet and Others Vs. Union of India and Others in OA No. 853/2015 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same was dismissed on 01.12.2016 without any sufficient discussion, either on merits or on limitation, whereas in Dharambir Singh Ranga's case (supra), the applicants were also O.T. Technicians like the applicants in the instant OA and their identical claim was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal after considering identical submissions, except the submissions made with respect to Somnath Chakraborty and Others (supra) following various other decisions of Page 16 of 18 17 OA No.201/00812/2016 different Coordinate Benches in respect of Laboratory Assistants and Plaster Assistants also of the respondents-ESI Corporation Hospitals. It is also the admitted case of the respondents that the Writ Petitions filed in respect of all these OAs are pending before Hon'ble High Courts and that no stay was granted in any of those cases and accordingly they have complied with the said orders in those OAs, in respect of applicants therein, though subject to the result of the Writ Petitions. The applicants are seeking extension of the decisions in Brham Pal's case (supra) and Dharambir Singh Ranga's case (supra), wherein the decisions of other Coordinate Benches were considered and followed. (10). Since in our view the applicants are identically placed like the applicants in Dharambir Singh Ranga's case (supra) and since we are agreeing with the reasoning given therein, including on the identical submissions on limitation and merits, the OA deserves to be allowed.
18. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid parity of reasons, we allow the OA. The respondents are directed to grant the applicants pay scale of 4000-6000 (corresponding pay scale 5200- 20200 + Grade Pay 2400/- in 6th CPC) from the respective date of their recruitment/promotion as O.T. Assistant. However, they are entitled for arrears with effect from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., on 05.08.2016 and without any interest thereon. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a Page 17 of 18 18 OA No.201/00812/2016 copy of this order. This order is subject to the result of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents against the orders of Principal Bench of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2004 in OA No.1464/2003 - Ashok Kumar & Others vs. Union of India and others and also the Writ Petition No.18/2015, filed against the orders dated 19.12.2013 in OA No.3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Others vs. Union of India and Others) and Writ Petitions No.8261/2016 and 8264/2016 filed against the orders dated 19.04.2016 in OA Nos.2995 & 2996/2014 (Dharambir Singh Ranga and Others vs. Director General, ESI Corporation and Others) and also after the applicants submit individual undertaking that they will refund the excess payment, if any, in the event of allowing the said Writ Petitions and will not claim any equities. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
am/-
Page 18 of 18