Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ravi Kumar Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 31 July, 2025
1 OA 201/260/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
Circuit Sitting : Indore
Original Application No.201/260/2022
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Ravi Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Durga Prasad Sharma Prakash Kaushal,
Age 30 years, O.T. Assistant, ESIC Model Hospital, R/o 8/31, Type-2,
Doctors' Colony, ESIC Campus, Nanda Nagar, Indore 452011.
2. Pawan Sahu, S/o Shri Ramprasad Sahu, Age 39 years, O.T. Assistant,
ESIC Model Hospital, R/o 37, Penjon Colony, Indore.
3. Brahma Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Triyugi Narayan Mishra, Age 33 years,
O.T. Assistant, ESIC Model Hospital, R/o 44/11, Type-2 Doctors' Colony,
ESIC Campus, Nanda Nagar, Indore 452011.
4. Rajeev Patel, S/o Shri Kalyan Patel, Age 34 years, O.T. Assistant, ESIC
Model Hospital, R/o Village Palasiya, Post Dakachya, Tehsil Sanawar,
District Indore.
5. Daddu Singh Dodve, S/o Shri Bholu Singh Dodve, Age 30 years, OT
Assistant, ESIC Model Hospital, R/o Type-B, 5/20, Doctors' Colony, ESIC
Campus, Nanda Nagar, Indore 452011.
6. Mrs. Dolly Banafar, W/o Shri Lokesh Kumar Ahirwal, Age 33 years, OT
Assistant, ESIC Model Hospital, R/o 8, Ganesh Nagar, Khandwa Road,
Indore.
Page 1 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01
16:33:00
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 OA 201/260/2022
7. Ankur Choudhary, S/o Shri Santosh Choudhary, Age 37 years, OT
Assistant, ESIC Model Hospital, R/o 30/2, Panchsheel Colony, Musakhedi,
Indore. -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 Quarters, 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 V.K. Gangwal)
(Date of reserving order : 06.05.2025)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicants (except applicant Nos.1 & 5) are seeking direction to the respondents to grant them pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400/- under the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. the date of their appointment to the post of O.T. Assistant in ESIC Hospital while the applicants Nos.1 & 5 are claiming pay scale of Rs.9300-42000 + Grade Pay Rs.4200/- from the date of their joining on the post of O.T. Assistant.
Page 2 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 3 OA 201/260/2022
2. The applicants have sought for the following relief in this Original Application:
"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant to applicants (except Applicants No.1 & 5) pay scale of PB-1 RS.5200-20200 + GP 2400 under 6th CPC from the date of their respective joining on the post of O.T. Assistant.
8.2 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant to Applicants No.1 & 5 pay scale of PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 from the date of his joining on the post of O.T. Assistant. 8.3 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix their pay in accordance of 7th CPC & pay the arrears of their revised pay scales from the date of their respective joining on the post of O.T. Assistant.
8.4 Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed necessary, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.5 Award costs of this application."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant were appointed directly on the post of O.T. Assistant by the ESIC in 2017 in the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2000/-. Apart from having Graduation degree in Science/12th pass, the applicants Nos.1 to 4 are having diploma in various fields viz; diploma in Anesthesia Technician, diploma in Operation Theatre Technician. The applicant No.5 is also a Science Graduate having certificate in Ortho and the applicant No.6 is a Graduate in Physiotherapy and having certificate in O.T. Technician. Applicant No.7 is 12th pass and having certificate in O.T. Technician. Page 3 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 OA 201/260/2022 3.1 As per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 under Part-B of First Schedule, pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 (corresponding pay scale in 6th CPC is PB-1 (i.e. Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.2400/-). This has been sanctioned to other Technicians having matriculation with some experience, whereas the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 (corresponding pay scale in 6th CPC is PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4200/-). This was sanctioned for those who are Graduates in Science.
3.2 Some similarly placed O.T. Assistants/Technicians & C.S.S.D. Assistants of different ESIC Hospitals of Delhi, had preferred Original Applications Nos.2995/2014 and 2996/2014 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which was allowed in their favour vide order dated 19.04.2016. Some of the employees of ESIC Hospital, Indore have also preferred an Original Application No.201/812/2016 before this Tribunal, wherein while placing reliance on the order (supra) passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, this Tribunal directed the respondents to grant the applicants pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 (corresponding pay scale 5200-20200 + GP 2400/-) in 6th CPC from their respective date of recruitment/promotion as O.T. Assistant. 3.3 The applicants Nos.1 to 5 & 7, placing reliance on the above orders, preferred a representation to the respondents (Annexure A-8 collectively). The applicant No.6 preferred her representation on 09.12.2021 followed by reminders Page 4 of 11 VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 OA 201/260/2022 dated 03.01.2022 and 24.02.2022 (Annexure A-9 colly). However, the claim of the applicants has been rejected on the ground that the benefit of order passed in OA 201/812/2016 (supra) is granted to the persons who were party before the Tribunal and not to the others.
4. The respondents Nos.2 & 3 have filed their reply refuting the claim of the applicants stating that the recommendation for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 for the posts requiring Matriculation with some experience as minimum qualification for direct recruitment has not been accepted by the Central Government as well by ESIC in case of O.T. Assistant. However, they concede that benefit of higher Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- was granted to the applicants in OA No.201/812/2016 subject to outcome of the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi. The respondents have further raised the objection that the instant Original Application is barred by limitation period. 4.1 The respondents have also stated that as per Recruitment Regulations, Nursing Orderly is the feeder post to many promotional posts e.g. Laboratory Assistant, CSSD/CSR Assistant and Plaster Assistant etc. In order to provide equal promotional avenues to the Nursing Orderly cadre being promoted to different cadres, all these promotional posts have been placed in Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. If higher grade pay is granted to Nursing Orderlies being promoted as OT Assistants, it will create administrative problems by disturbing the whole Page 5 of 11 VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 OA 201/260/2022 cadre structure and will cause dissatisfaction amongst the employees being promoted to other posts.
4.2 The respondents have also accepted that the benefit of higher G.P. of 2400 has been granted to the persons who were applicants in O.A. No. 201/812/2016 passed by this Tribunal subject to outcome of the W.P. filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The same benefit cannot be extended to others without any specific direction of the High Court. The respondents further submitted this Tribunal can consider the case of the applicants on merit from the date of filing of this O.A. without any interest subject to the outcome of W.P. No. 24989/2018 (ESIC vs Neelesh and others) pending before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Applicants being OT assistants were granted pay in level 3 (revised pay scale of PB-1 + GP Rs. 2000 as per 6th CPC) and they are not entitled for the higher Grade pay of 2400. There is another W.P. on same issue pending before the High Court of Delhi in respect of the benefit granted to the applicant (Anil Kumar Kalra) in O.A. No. 1114 of 2008 on provisional basis. The ESIC medical institutions are much smaller in comparison to Central Government Hospitals. Therefore the provisions relating to the subject matter applicable in CHS are suo moto not applicable to ESIC but are to be adopted with the approval of corporation and the Central Government. The Recruitment Rules Page 6 of 11 VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 OA 201/260/2022 for OT Assistant prescribes for a Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- where a candidate with 12th in Science Stream and one year experience is eligible for appointment. 4.3 ESIC is required to grant pay scale to its employees as prescribed in relevant Recruitment Regulations of the post. In the Recruitment Rules of O.T. Assistant & CSSD Assistant respectively a grade pay of Rs. 2000/- has been prescribed and for O.T. Technician & CSSD Technician, a grade pay of Rs. 2,400/- has been prescribed and accordingly the same is being granted to the applicants. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for higher grade pay of Rs 2,400/- and 4,200/- respectively being OT/CSSD Assistant and OT/CSSD Technician.
5. We have considered the matter, heard the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the O.A..
6. It is evident from the record that applicants were appointed directly on the post of O.T. Assistant by the ESIC in 2017 in the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2000/-. The applicant No. 2 joined his duty on 24.08.2017, Applicant No. 4 joined his duty on 28.08.2017, Applicant No. 5 joined his duty on 31.08.2017, Applicants No. 1 & 3 joined their duties on 01.09.2017 and Applicant No. 7 joined his duty on 30.08.2019. We observe that the applicants gave their representations jointly to the Respondent No. 3 requesting for Higher Grade Pay on 15.10.2019 which have been followed by subsequent reminders. Page 7 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 OA 201/260/2022 The representations of the applicants were rejected vide order dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure A/1).
7. As far as the grounds of limitation are concerned, we take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K C Sharma & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors 1997 AIR SCW 3699 relied upon by the applicants. The Hon'ble Apex Court has condoned the delay and the respondents have been directed to give the benefit to the applicants vis-à-vis the similarly placed employees. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has held as follows:
"Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 199 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellants would be entitled to the same relief in matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs."
Further the applicants have also made a plea that Apex Court has already extended limitation period due to the COVID pandemic. In this regard, we take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. Page 8 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 OA 201/260/2022 665 OF 2021 (IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO.3 OF 2020) wherein the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded in respect of any law which prescribes the period of limitation for institution of proceedings. Therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K C Sharma (Supra) and suo moto W.P. (Supra), we consider this O.A. filed by the applicant on 10.03.2022 to be within the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
8. Coming to the merits of the case, there is an order of this Tribunal (in O.A./201/812/2016 dated 06.08.2018) wherein a similar issue came up and the same was decided in favour of the applicants relying on the judgment of the Principal Bench in the case of Poonam Rani & Ors vs Union of India (in O.A. No. 3567/2016 dated 31.05.2018). The said judgment of this Bench relying on the judgment of Principal Bench of this Tribunal (Supra) has granted benefit to O.T. Assistants with the G.P. of 2400 from the respective date of recruitment and promotion as O.T. Assistant. They have also been given arrears w.e.f. date of filing O.A. without any interest. Since we find the facts of this case are similar to the order of this Tribunal, therefore, we allow the same benefit to the applicants with a Grade Pay of 2400 with arrears from the date of appointment without interest.
Page 9 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 OA 201/260/2022
9. We take note that the applicant nos. 1 & 5 are asking for higher Grade Pay of 4200/- though working on the same post on the plea of having higher educational qualification i.e. Graduation. The minimum required qualification for the said post of O.T. is matriculation along with O.T. Technician diploma. Applicants when they joined the post were well aware of the fact that they were overqualified for the post and they would be given the same pay scale which was being given to others. They cannot turn back today and claim a higher Grade Pay on account of their higher qualification.
10. Reliance is placed on the judgment of P.B. of this Tribunal in case of Somnath Chakraborty and others vs Union of India in O.A./1438/2015 decided on 22.04.2016 wherein the CAT, Principal Bench has disallowed the benefit regarding grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- to the applicants on the similar facts.
11. They have taken this view on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh & Orthers vs Manju Mathur and Another [2011(2) SCC 452], wherein it has been held that equivalence can only be drawn in the case of equals.
12. On the basis of the above arguments, we deny the benefit of Grade pay of 4200 to the applicant nos. 1 & 5. However, they are also entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- from the date of appointment with arrears without any interest. Page 10 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01 16:33:00 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 OA 201/260/2022 Respondents are directed to grant the aforesaid benefit with all consequential arrears within a period of 90 days of the passing of the order. The O.A. is disposed of in these lines. No order as to costs.
13. The relief is subject to the decision of pending W.P. No. 24989/2018 (ESIC vs Nilesh and others) before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 11 of 11
VISHAL 2025.08.01
16:33:00
KUSHWAH+05'30'