Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr M G Shivakumar Babu vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 29 August, 2025
1 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00239/2025
ORDER RESERVED : 14.08.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 29.08.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Dr. M.G. Shivakumar Babu, 62 years,
S/o Late Sri T.Gangaiah,
Chief Medical Officer (NFSG),
Head of the Urology Department,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Model Hospital, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
Residing at No.72, 3rd main,
1st Stage Karnataka Layout,
West of Chord Road,
Bengaluru-560010. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri P.A. Kulkarni)
Vs.
1. The Director General,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchadeep Bhavan, CIG Marg,
New Delhi -110002.
2. Medical Commissioner (Administration),
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchadeep Bhavan, CIG Marg,
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
2025.09.01
suneja 17:43:34+05'30'
2 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
New Delhi 110002.
3. Dean,
ESIC MC Post Graduate Institute & Medical
Science Research (PGIMSR),
Model Hospital Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
4. Medical Superintendent,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Model Hospital,
Rajajinagar 2nd Block,
Bengaluru -560010. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N. Amaresh)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:
"a) Quash the e-mail order dated 29.04.2025 Annexure A5 emanated from the office of DEAN, ESIC MC Graduate Institute & Medical Science Research, Model Hospital Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and Medical Superintendent, ESIC Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru Respondents No.3 &4 respectively with a further direction to the respondents to permit working of the applicant as before till the age of 65 years.
b) Pass such other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 3 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The facts in a Nutshell are as follows:
The applicant, while working in Rajajinagar ESIC Hospital, as HoD of Department of Urology, attained superannuation at the age of 62 years on 31st July 24. He opted for extension of service up to 65 years, based on the GSR No.767 (E) dated 11.08.2018 of DoPT and OM and SOP dated 17.10.2018 of ESIC. In anticipation of the extension, the applicant was permitted to continue to work in the ESI hospital till April 2025. However, on 29.04.2025, an email was received from the Respondents by which, he was prohibited to work further and his Biometric ID was deactivated. Aggrieved by this order, he has approached this Tribunal for relief through this OA.
3. The applicant's Counsel submits that the applicant, while working as HOD in the Department of Urology at ESIC Hospital Rajajinagar, attained superannuation on 31st July 24, on reaching the age of 62 years. He further states that the applicant, strictly in conformity with Annexure A2, which is the OM dated 17.10.2018 of ESIC, had applied for extension of service up to 65 years, in both online and off-line mode on 18th March 24. As no communication was received regarding his confirmation of extension, Respondents continued the services of the applicant, in anticipation of his confirmation. However, no salary was paid to him from August, 2024 onwards for a long time.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 4 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. The applicant's Counsel further submits that on 29th April 25, an Order was received communicating that from 1st May 2025, the applicant will not be allowed to work any further and his Biometric ID will be deactivated .
5. The applicant Counsel points out that this order was illegal and incorrect and indicates high handedness on the part of the higher administration. Highlighting the contribution of the applicant as HOD of Urology Department, the Counsel says that the applicant secured two seats in Urology for PG Super Speciality, and was also guiding two students for July, 2023 session in addition to working as a Senior Consultant faculty in the Department of Urology. The Counsel states that the applicant had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in a number of cases previously to protect his rights pertaining to Service matters. It is perhaps due to his recourse to Courts which has resulted in the rejection of his application for extension of service up to 65 years. This is indicative of vindictive approach on the part of the higher administration which is unjustified.
6. Citing the doctrine of Parity/Equality, the applicant points out that his associate Dr Giri , who was working at CMO, NFSG mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 5 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH grade, was given extension for three years, on 25th October 24 itself, i.e., before his date of retirement. Likewise, in the case of Dr Imtihan Hussain, who despite the fact that he was under suspension during the Covid period, was also given extension for three years by an Order dated 4th January 2024.
7. The Counsel further submits that once the Services of the Applicant were continued by the administration beyond his date of superannuation i.e., 31st July 2024, the rejection of extension was wholly incorrect and unjustified.
8. The Counsel asserts that as per the OM dated 17.10.2018 of ESIC (Annexure A2), the ESIC Headquarters has absolutely no discretion in the matter, once a doctor gives his willingness for continuation of services up to 65 years. Denial to him is a retrogressive step as the purpose of the DoPT Circular (Annexure A1), was for utilising the services of the scarce doctors for additional three years. Hence, this rejection is colourable exercise of power and lacks objectivity and logic.
9. The Counsel concludes by stating that the impugned orders should be set aside and directions should be given to the Respondents to permit him to work till the age of 65 years, on grounds of Parity mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 6 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and Equality and in conformity with the objectives and purposes of the DOPT circular No. GSR 767(E) submitted as Annexure A1.
10. The respondents have filed their reply. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the decision of the rejection of extension of services beyond 62 years for the applicant was duly communicated to the applicant vide Email dated 29.04.2025. The email also directed that the applicant should be paid full salary for the period he had worked beyond the date of superannuation.
The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the continuation of services of Medical Officers beyond 62 years was subject to the availability of vacancy and administrative convenience as decided by the Competent Authority as laid down in the Option Format enclosed with OA of ESIC filed as Annexure A2.
11. He also invites our attention to OA No. 658 /2023, still pending in this Hon'ble Tribunal, in which he has challenged the speaking order of his transfer, which was issued in compliance to orders in OA No. 186/2023.
12. He states that according to the amended Rules 2018, Para 2(bb) of GSR 767(E) at Annexure - A1 and OM of ESIC at Annexure
- A2, the Competent Authority has the discretionary powers to give mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 7 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH extension or reject the same. He says that the decision to reject the extension was neither illegal nor arbitrary.
13. Contesting the assertion of the applicant regarding the rule of Parity / equality, the learned counsel points out the case of Medical Officer Dr. Shyam Narain Sharma, whose request for extension beyond 62 years was also rejected by the ESIC. The OA No. 497/2023 filed by the MO against rejection of his request for extension up to 65 years, was dismissed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal (Annexure - R3). The decision of the tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Writ Petition No.17088/2023 dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure - R4) and the SLP No.8743/2024 filed by the applicant was dismissed in the Supreme Court dated 07.03.2025 which is produced as Annexure-R5.
14. The counsel cites the relevant portions of the judgment which are as follows:
"2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that there is only one sanctioned post at ESIC Model Hospital, Jaipur and the present applicant as well as one Dr. Deepak Sharma are already working against this sanctioned post, since the present applicant has attained the age of retirement, his request for extension of service beyond 62 years has been rejected by the Competent authority and grant of extension beyond the age of 62 years is not a matter of right.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 8 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. After hearing the parties, the material available on record and perusing the above cited judgment wherein the relief sought by the petitioners was for enhancing their age of retirement and also on perusing the above Notification dated 11th August, 2018, we are of the view that the grant of extension beyond the age of superannuation is not a vested right of an employee and it is for the competent authority in the concerned Ministry or Department to take a decision for grant of extension beyond the age of superannuation.
4. In view of the above discussions, we do not find it a fit case for interference by this Tribunal and, thus, the same deserves to be dismissed."
15. The order of C.A.T. Jaipur Bench supra, was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, at Jaipur in Writ Petition No. 17088/2023 which was decided on 22.01.2024. The Hon'ble High Court also affirmed the order of the C.A.T Jaipur. The relevant paras are extracted as follows:-
"9. This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, we have carefully gone through the provisions of amended Rules wherein the discretion lies with the Competent Authority with regard to extension of service of an employee beyond the age of superannuation looking to the requirement and suitability of the candidate in the department, therefore, in our considered view, no illegality has been committed by the department in not extending the superannuation age of the petitioner with them; secondly, the argument with regard to mala-fide raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is not acceptable as the petitioner has not mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 9 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH impleaded any officer of the department by name as a party respondent in this writ petition against whom such allegations have been made and lastly, so far as the argument with regard to discrimination is concerned in the Rules itself a discretion has been given to the authority either to continue with an employee beyond the age of 62 years or to discontinue with them looking to the need and suitability of the person in the department, therefore, in our considered view, no interference is required by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and we find no jurisdictional error in the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal.
10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed."
16. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan was further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8743/2024 which was decided on 07.03.2025. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is as follows:-
" We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of."
17. Learned counsel for the Respondents also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1552/2012 titled Hariom Sharan Srivastava vs. State of U.P. & others which was decided on 21.10.2021. Paras 17 & 18 are relevant:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 10 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "17. Following judgment in the case of Basanta Kumar Das (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others Vs. Jag Mohan Lal reported in AIR 1989 SC 75 in paragraph 9 and 10 has observed as under:-
"9. What do we have here in this case to distinguish those principles or not to apply those principles? In our opinion, there is none. In the scheme provided herein the respondent or any other officer of the Bank has a legitimate right to remain in service till he attains the age of superannuation. But beyond that age, he has no such right unless his service is extended by the Bank. The further rights of parties are regulated by the proviso to Regulation 19(1). It reads: "Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion, extend the period of service ot an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years' service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. "
10. Look at the language of proviso and the purpose underlying. The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer. On what ground? For what purpose?
That has been also made clear in the proviso itself. It states "should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank". The sole purpose of giving extension of service is, therefore, to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officers. Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials. But it is incorrect to state that it is a conferment of benefit or privilege on officers. The officers upon attaining the age of superannuation or putting the required number of years of service do not earn that benefit or mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 11 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH privilege. The High Court has completely misunderstood the nature of right and purpose of the proviso. The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank. It is a discretion available with every employer, every management, State or otherwise. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank, is may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation, it is an end of the matter. It is no reflection on the officer. It carries no stigma."
18. Yet the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Venugopal vs. Union of India, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 1, in paragraph-8 has observed as under:-
"13. ...The Bank has no obligation to extend the services of all officers even if they are found suitable in every respect. The interest of the Bank is the primary consideration for giving extension of service. With due regard to exigencies of service, the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers. In another year, it may give extension to some and not to all. In a subsequent year, it may not give extension to any one of the officers. The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in one year. The Bank may not need the services of all retired persons in another year. The Bank may have lesser workload in a succeeding year. The retiring persons cannot in any year demand that "extension to all or none". If we concede that right to retiring persons, then the very purpose of giving extension in the interest of the Bank would be defeated. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no scope for complaining arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons.""
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 12 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
18. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 17038 and 23764 of 2013 titled Tikka Ram & ors. vs. State of Punjab & others which was decided on 31.03.2015. Para 18 of the judgment is relevant:-
"18. The above proposition of law, as reproduced above, was reiterated by the Apex Court in a later decision in the case of P. Venugopal Vs. Union of India (UOI), as under:-
"8. It is true that in establishments like AIMS, there is an age of superannuation governing the length of service of its officers and employees. Such age of superannuation may be suitably altered by way of reducing the age so as to affect even the serving employees under appropriate circumstances and no exception can be taken to such course of action. Similarly, under the service rules, there may be provision for extension of service after the attainment of the age of superannuation and it is well settled that in the event of refusal by an employer to grant an extension, the employee cannot justifiably claim to be deprived of any right or privilege. The view taken is that the employer has a discretion to grant or not to grant such extension having regard to the interest of the employer or the establishment. This view was expressed by this Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal. In this case, at AIR para 12, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.226, para
13).
"13. ... The Bank has no obligation to extend the services of all officers even if they are found suitable in every respect. The interest of the Bank is the primary consideration for giving extension of service. With due regard to exigencies of service, the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers. In another year, it may give extension to some and not to all. In a subsequent year, it mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 13 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH may not give extension to any one of the officers. The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in one year. The Bank may not need the services of all retired persons in another year. The Bank may have lesser workload in a succeeding year. The retiring persons cannot in any year demand 'extension to all or none'. If we concede that right to retiring persons, then the very purpose of giving extension in the interest of the Bank would be defeated. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no scope for complaining of arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons."
19. The learned counsel for the respondents concludes by stating that in the light of the laid down SOP and the judgment of the Jaipur bench of CAT, upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other judgments cited above, the OA deserves to be dismissed.
20. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned counsels for the applicant and respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Superior Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the departmental rules, etc., which were brought on record by the respective counsels.
21. For balance of convenience, let us have look at the relevant Orders of the DOPT and ESIC in this regard. They are produced ad verbatim as follows:
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 14 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (1) "No. 563 NEW DELHI SATURDAY AUGUST 11,2018/SHRAVANA 20,1940 MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) ' NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 11thAugust 2018 G.S.R 767(E) -- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Fundamental Rules, 1922, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement- (1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018.
2. In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in rule 56 for clause (bb), the following shall be substituted namely:-
"(bb) (i) The age of superannuation in respect of the doctors belonging to-
Shall be sixty-two years unless they exercise the option of posting to Teaching Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health Programmes, Public Health Programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy depending on their expertise and experience as decided by the competent authority in the concerned Ministry or Department from time to time to time in case they desire to continue in their service upto the age of sixty-five years:
(iii) The serving -doctors who fail to exercise the option in regard to their posting to Teaching Clinical Patient Care, Implementation of Health programmes, 'Public Health, programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy as specified in sub-clause (i) within the period specified in sub-
clause (ii) shall be superannuated form their service on attaining the age of sixty-two years or on expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 whichever is later"
(2) "HEADQUARTERS OFFICE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 15 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH (ISO 9001-2008 CERTIFIED) PANCHDEEP BHAWAN, C.I.G. MARG, NEW DELHI-
110002 Tel: 011-23234092/93 Extn: 444, VOIP - 10011073 Email: [email protected] No:A-40/11/13/1/2016-Med.VI Dated: 17-10-2018 OFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FUNDAMENTAL (SECOND AMENDMENT) RULES, 2018-OPTION TO BE SUBMITTED BY ESIC MEDICAL OFFICERS (TEACHING & NON TEACHING) UPTO 65 YEARS-REGARDING.
The undersigned is directed to forward herewith Department of Personnel and Training's notification No. GSR 767 (E) published in the Gazette of India dated 11.08.2018 vide which the age of superannuation in respect of the doctors belonging to Central Government shall be 62 years unless they exercise the option of posting to teaching, clinical or patient care. The notification being an amendment in Fundamental Rules (FR), by virtue of Section 17(2) of ESIC Act 1948, is applicable to the Medical Officers working in ESIC as well.
2. Accordingly, options in the prescribed format may be submitted by the serving Doctors of ESI Corporation (teaching & non- teaching) who have already attained the age of 62 years or are attaining the age of 62 years within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this communication, for their continuation in service in teaching / clinical / patient care etc if they desire to continue upto the age of 65 years.
3. The serving doctors belonging to teaching & non-teaching cadres, who fail to exercise this option with regard to their continuation in service upto 65 years as mentioned in Para 2 above shall stand superannuated from their service on attaining the age of 62 years or on expiry of 30 days, as the case may be, from the date of issue of this communication, whichever is later.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 16 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. As this will be an ongoing process, the heads of ESIC hospitals / Institutions shall send the "Option", to be submitted by the coricerned doctors in the prescribed format, atleast six months prior to Deputy Director (Medical Administration-VI), ESI Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110 002.
5. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned under acknowledgment."
(3) OPTION FORMAT
3. I am aware that I will be considered for posting to posts other than administrative posts and the desired field as per my option indicated subject to availability of vacancy and administrative convenience, as decided by the Competent Authority. Further, I shall not stake any claim for posting to any additional administrative posts notified in future. I also understand that my continuation in service is subject to ESI Corporation rules / instructions etc issued from time to time."
(4) "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for continuation of services of Medical Officers beyond the age of 62 years As per the service conditions of the medical officers in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), the age of retirement of the medical officers is 65 years. However, beyond 62 years of their age, the medical officers cannot perform duties against administrative posts and for continuation of their services beyond 62 years, they can perform their duties in clinical positions only. Therefore, for performing duties beyond 62 years of their age, an option is required to be obtained from such medical officers well in time.
2. Hence, to ensure time bound action in this regard, following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been prescribed for compliance by the stakeholders:
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 17 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH i. Medical officers approaching the age of 62 years within the next 6 months shall be eligible to apply for an extension. The application module in the ERP system is automatically activated for the purpose 6 months before reaching the age of 62 years.
ii. Application by the concerned official must be submitted 3 months prior to reaching the age of 62 years to ensure timely processing, preferably as soon as the applicable ERP module is activated. iii. Applicants need to take a hard copy of the request generated in the ERP system and submit it to their reporting officer, alongwith the duly completed checklist (attached as Annexure-I). iv. The report officer to forward, through the controlling authority, the duly filled application form alongwith the requisite enclosure to the Medical Administration Division at ESIC Headquarters, within 15 days of its receipt from the concerned applicant. v. The Medical Administration Division will assess analyse all such requests including the completeness of the attached checklist and present it to the DG, ESIC consideration within 3 weeks from the date of the receipts of the requests.
vi. DG, ESIC will submit his recommendation to the competent authority for approval.
vii. The. Deputy Director (Medical Administration) will be responsible for approving the extension request in the ERP within 3 days of the receipt of the approval/ decision letter from the Medical Administration branch.
viii. The outcome/ decision will be communicated to the concerned medical officer through their controlling authorities within a week of the issue of the approval/ decision letter. ix. Grievance, if any, may be submitted by the concerned medical officer, to their reporting officer, within the 7 working days of the receipt of the communication in this regard.
3. The grievance, if any, will be submitted through the respective controlling authority, within next 3 working days, to the Medical Administration Division of ESIC Headquarters for presenting before the DG, ESIC for appropriate consideration."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 18 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH From the above directives of DoPT and ESIC, certain facts emerge. The conditions required for the extension of age of superannuation of medical officers to 65 years are as follows:-
i) Willingness of the Medical Officers to work up to the age of 65 years.
ii) Decision of the Competent Authority regarding availability of vacancies and suitability of the Medical Officers with respect to their expertise, experience, etc.
iii) The OM also mentions that such extension would be available only to those doctors who have given willingness for teaching / clinical / patient care etc. and not for performance of administrative duties.
This SOP in the very first para lays down that the age of retirement for medical officers in ESIC is 65 years. However, the medical officers cannot perform administrative duties beyond the age of 62 years and can work only in clinical positions. It also lays down the detailed procedure for applying for extension and the subsequent process.
22. In the light of the above OM & SOP of ESIC, let us examine the order of rejection issued by ESIC for the applicant which reads as follows:-
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 19 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "Regarding Extension of service beyond 62 years in r/o Dr. Shivakumar Babu MG Tue, Apr 29, 2025 02:58 PM Sir, Dr. Shivakumar Babu MG submitted representation regarding extension of service beyond 62 years on 18.03.2024. As the MO completed 62 years of age on 10.07.2024. This office already forwarded the offline and online approval form for extension of service of above-mentioned Medical Officer to HQRS vide letter dated 23.03.2024, 22.08.2024, 20.12.2024, 13.03.2025, 27.03.2025 & 28.04.2024 and for clarification correspondence was also done (as attached), but no reply received.
Also, intimated that the Medical Officer not drawn any salary from August 2024, for this, clarification was sought from HQRS, but no reply received yet.
Now, as per the instruction of the Competent Authority, from 01.05.2025, the MO will not be allowed to work, and Biometric Id will be deactivated. Any clarification/reply from HQRS is awaited."
23. "Order no:A-42013/1/2022-MED-VI(Comp.No.2776) Dated:04.01.2024 OFFICE ORDER NO:05/2024 In continuation of the office memorandum dated 17.10.2018, the competent authority has approved the extension of service for the following medical officers Beyond the age of 62 years i.e., from their scheduled date of retirement as detailed below:
S.N Name of DOB Wheth Dt.of Extend
o the er attaining age ed date
Medical holdin of 62 years of
Officer g retirem
admini ent
strativ
e post
1 Dr. Deepti 08/10/1961 No 31.10.2023 Till
Jain, CMO further
(SAG) orders
Emp.ID or up to
111476 31.10.2
026,
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
2025.09.01
suneja 17:43:34+05'30'
20 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
whiche
ver is
earlier
2 Dr. Sushil 15/10/1961 No 31.10.2023 Till
Kumar, further
CMO orders
(SAG) or up to
Emp.ID:11 31.10.2
6176 026,
whiche
ver is
earlier
3 Dr.Imtihan 01/12/1961 No 30.11.2023 Till
Hussain, further
CMO orders
(SAG) or up to
Emp.ID:11 30.11.2
8170 026,
whiche
ver is
earlier
4 Dr. Aseem 19/12/1961 Yes 31.12.2023 Till
Logani, further
CMO orders
(SAG) or up to
Emp.ID:11 31.12.2
1700 026,
whiche
ver is
earlier
5 Dr. Arun 26/12/1961 No 31.12.2023 Till
Kumar further
Gupta, orders
CMO or up to
(SAG) 31.12.2
Emp.ID:11 026,
1370 whiche
ver is
earlier
Note: These officers, if holding any administrative responsibilities shall be relieved of them upon attaining the age of 62. They shall not be assigned any administrative duties beyond clinical work even on an additional charge basis. Wherever applicable, their responsibilities shall be handed over to the senior most medical officer at the hospital or to another officer as directed by Headquarters."
24. Para 22 is the impugned order. It is very bland and bald. It acknowledges that the representation was received from the applicant on 18.03.2024 (within the stipulated period). However, it simply mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 21 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH mentions that the IO will not be allowed to work from 01.05.2025 and that his biometric ID will be deactivated. No reasons or grounds are given for the rejection of the request of the applicant. On the contrary, para 23 indicates Office Order No.05/2024, which grants extension to 5 medical officers, including Dr Imtihan Hussain who was stated to be earlier under suspension.
25. This appears to be arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities in ESIC. Absolutely no reasons or grounds are given in either of the two orders mentioned above, regarding grant of extension for five doctors in one order and rejection of extension in another.
26. It is pertinent to mention here that in a catena of judgements, the Honourable Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have consistently held that every order or decision of a government entity should be backed by sound logic and reasoning and should not be arbitrary. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant portions of certain judgements are cited as below:-
Writ C No. 25502 of 2019 titled Ahmad Ullah vs Union of India and 5 others decided by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 13.09.2019.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 22 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, has observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:-
"10. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.
14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30'
23 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.
17. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [(1979) 2 SCC 368], while dealing with the matter of selection of candidates who could be under review, if not found suitable otherwise, the Court explained the reasons being a link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions and held, that where providing reasons for proposed supersession were essential, then it could not be held to be a valid reason that the concerned officer's record was not such as to justify his selection was not contemplated and thus was not legal. In this context, the Court held:-
"... "Reasons" are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List."
This principle has been extended to administrative actions on the premise that it applies with greater rigor to the judgments of the Courts.
20. A Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. V. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare [2008 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal 280], wherein the Bench was concerned mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 24 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH with an appeal against an order, where prayer for an interim relief was rejected without stating any reasons in a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court noticed, that legality, propriety and correctness of the order was challenged on the ground that no reason was recorded by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer and this has seriously prejudiced the interest of justice. After a detailed discussion on the subject, the Court held:-
"8. The Supreme Court and different High Courts have taken the view that it is always desirable to record reasons in support of the Government actions whether administrative or quasi judicial. Even if the statutory rules do not impose an obligation upon the authorities still it is expected of the authorities concerned to act fairly and in consonance with basic rule of law. These concepts would require that any order, particularly, the order which can be subject matter of judicial review, is reasoned one.
16. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under:
"8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration."
In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 25 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
21. It will be useful to refer words of Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court of Queensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on September 13, 2002 in relation to Judgment Writing. Describing that some judgment could be complex, in distinction to routine judgments, where one requires deeper thoughts, and the other could be disposed of easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking about purpose of the judgment, he said, "The first matter to consider is the purpose of the judgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written: -
(1) to clarify your own thoughts;
(2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public;
and (4) to provide reasons for an appeal Court to consider."
22. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120, the Court went to the extent of observing that "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. They are link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by the higher Court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial chastism."
M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20428 of 2007.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 26 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "15. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court in A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 150.
18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the `inscrutable face of a Sphinx'.
25. In M/s. Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. Woolcombers Workers Union and another, AIR 1973 SC 2758, this Court while considering an award under Section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in support of conclusions in the Award. The Court held that the very requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong (See para 5 page 2761).
26. In Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87, this Court while dealing with the question of selection under Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion Regulation) held that the expression "reasons for the proposed supersession" should not be mere rubber stamp reasons. Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 27 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two (See para 28 page 98).
33. In a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1, while giving the majority judgment Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as follows:
"Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessat Ipsa Lex"
34. The English version of the said principle given by the Chief Justice is that: "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself." (See para 29 page 11)
38. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi and others, (1991) 2 SCC 716, this Court held that even in domestic enquiry if the facts are not in dispute non- recording of reason may not be violative of the principles of natural justice but where facts are disputed necessarily the authority or the enquiry officer, on consideration of the materials on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached (see para 22, pages 738-739)
51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 28 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 29 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
52. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remand the matter to the said forum for deciding the matter by passing a reasoned order in the light of the observations made above. Since some time has elapsed, this Court requests the forum to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of service of this order upon it."
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 30 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
27. It would be beneficial to revisit the relevant portions of Annexure-A1 pertaining to the extension of age of superannuation for doctors. It reads as follows:-
"2. In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in rule 56 for clause (bb), the following shall be substituted namely:-
"(bb) (i) The age of superannuation in respect of the doctors belonging to-
(i) ..... (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (v) .... (vi) .... (vii) .... (viii) ....
Shall be sixty-two years unless they exercise the option of posting to Teaching Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health Programmes, Public Health Programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy depending on their expertise and experience as decided by the competent authority in the concerned Ministry or Department from time to time to time in case they desire to continue in their service upto the age of sixty-five years."
28. The same has been reiterated in Annexure A2 which is the OM issued by ESIC cited supra.
29. Subsequently, the relevant portion of the SOP for ESIC indicated at Annexure A3 are as follows:-
"As per the service conditions of the medical officers in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), the age of retirement of the medical officers is 65 years. However, beyond 62 mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 31 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH years of their age, the medical officers cannot perform duties against administrative posts and for continuation of their services beyond 62 years, they can perform their duties in clinical positions only. Therefore, for performing duties beyond 62 years of their age, an option is required to be obtained from such medical officers well in time."
30. The very first para of the SOP mentions that the age of retirement for medical officers is 65 years in ESIC. However beyond the age of 62 years, they can perform their duties in clinical positions only.
31. Hence, it appears that the purpose of submission of an application for continuation of services of medical officers beyond the age of 62 years is:-
1. To ascertain the willingness of the medical officer to continue beyond age of 62 years.
2. 2 to see that all the relevant details are included in the application form as per the attached checklist.
3. To ensure that the medical officer does not perform administrative duties or work in any administrative capacity.
4. To check up vacancy availability and suitability of doctors with respect to available posts.
mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 32 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
32. Nothing is brought to our notice to indicate that the option which was exercised by the applicant and the formal application submitted by him, suffered from any infirmities or defects. He had submitted the application within the prescribed time and was in total conformity with the laid down SOP. It is also not disputed that beyond the age of superannuation, he was not working in any administrative capacity. It is an admitted fact that after attaining superannuation on 31.07.2024 he was working on the clinical side, till it was abruptly brought to a closure by the e-mail dated 29.04.2025.
33. On one side, it is seen that large number of Medical Officers were routinely given extension beyond the age of superannuation of 62 years, as is evident from Annexure A8. This includes one Doctor, by name Dr Imtihan Husaain, who was stated to be under suspension during the Covid period.
34. On the other side, despite the assertion of sterling contribution made by the applicant, which is not disputed by the respondents, the applicant has been denied extension. No explanation is given nor any grounds or reasons mentioned in the e-mail regarding rejection of his request for extension. It is pertinent to note mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 33 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the comments Column of Annexure A4, in which the following remarks are made:-
"The officer was transferred to Sanat Nagat in AGT 2023. He has approached Court. Matter is subjudice. He is currently working in Rajajinagar."
35. It goes without saying that resorting to legal remedies is a Right guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this cannot be and should not be held against the applicant.
36. The judgement cited by the counsel for respondent in OA No. 497/2023 of the Jaipur Bench of this tribunal, which was subsequently held by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to this case. In that particular case, there were two applicants against just one vacancy.
For convenience, the para is reiterated here:-
"2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that there is only one sanctioned post at ESIC Model Hospital, Jaipur and the present applicant as well as one Dr. Deepak Sharma are already working against this sanctioned post, since the present applicant has attained the age of retirement, his request for extension of service beyond 62 years has been rejected by the Competent authority and grant of extension beyond the age of 62 years is not a matter of right."
Furthermore, intimation regarding rejection of extension was communicated to the applicant well before the date of superannuation. On the contrary, in this case the applicant had sought mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 34 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH for his extension against an available vacant post, and he was also continued against that post well beyond his original date of superannuation. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the above case are not applicable here. It is also seen that in the other judgements stated by the respondent counsel in Paras 14 to 18 have a common thread in terms of clear provisions regarding discretion allotted to the banks which are essentially commercial entities. For example, Regulation 19 (1), cited on Page no. 10 (para 17) states: "Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer, who has attended the age of 58 years or has completed 30 years of service as the case maybe, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the bank."
37. Nothing is put on record to indicate any provision in the DoPT orders and/or ESIC OM / SOP, which indicates any discretion granted to the respondent regarding extension of services."
38. It is clear from the above facts and circumstances that the case of the applicant definitely falls within the ambit of the above cited judgements, where in absence of reasons / grounds in decision making has been considered valid enough for setting aside the orders.
It is evident that no grounds or justification has been given in the impugned order for the rejection of the request of the applicant. It is mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 35 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH also evident that the age of retirement for medical officers in ESIC is 65 years, as per the SOP cited above. However, it also cannot be denied that the respondent has the prerogative and right for acceptance or rejection of the request for extension, subject to various administrative criteria like availability of vacancies, suitability of the medical officer in terms of expertise and experience etc. It is very clear that no reasons or grounds have been given by the respondents, while issuing the order of rejection of extension to the applicant. This is in violation of the judgements stated above.
Furthermore, the Rejection order flies in the face of the first para of the SOP cited at Annexure A3, which is reiterated as follows:-
" As per the service conditions of the medical officers in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), the age of retirement of the medical officers is 65 years. However, beyond 62 years of their age, the medical officers cannot perform duties against administrative posts and for continuation of their services beyond 62 years, they can perform their duties in clinical positions only. Therefore, for performing duties beyond 62 years of their age, an option is required to be obtained from such medical officers well in time."
39. In the light of above, the OA is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to:-
1) Either grant extension of superannuation to the applicant, up to the age of 65 years, on the basis of his willingness application, mikashamikasha suneja CAT Bangalore 2025.09.01 suneja 17:43:34+05'30' 36 OA 239/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH in consonance with the laid down OM & SOP of ESIC at Annexures
- A2 & A3.
OR
2) If they still want to stand by their Order of Rejection dated 29.04.2025 in response to the Application giving willingness for Extension by the applicant dated 18.03.2024, then Issue a Revised Order of rejection, which should be a detailed, speaking order giving grounds / justification for rejection, when the decision was taken & communicated to the Applicant.
3) The above directions should be complied with, within eight weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this Order.
4) No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikashamikasha suneja
CAT Bangalore
2025.09.01
suneja 17:43:34+05'30'