Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Arihant Joshi vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 22 September, 2025
Item 37/C-2 1 OA 648/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH
OA No. 648/2021
On this the 22nd day of September, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Arihant Joshi, age 34 years, (Group - C)
Son of Sh. Vrdhi Shankar Sharma,
Presently working as Plaster Assistant,
ESI Hospital, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.,
Pin - 173205
2. Jeewan Singh, age 34 years, (Group - C)
Son of Sh. Bhupal Singh,
Presently working as Plaster Assistant,
ESI Hospital, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.,
Pin - 173205
....Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma)
Versus
1. Employees Estate Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, Kotla Road,
Through its General Manager, New Delhi - 110002
2. The Medical Superintendent, ESIC Model Hospital,
Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur with Ms. Monika)
B SHRI
B SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA2025.10.06
12:34:22+05'30'
Item 37/C-2 2 OA 648/2021
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
The present original application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the complete record of the case be called for.
(ii) That a direction to the respondent to extend the benefit of order dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure A-2) and 18.02.2020 (Annexure A3) by placing the applicants in Level - IV pay matrix instead of Level - III and order dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-1) to the extent it relates to the applicants placing them in level - III being contrary to Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 be quashed and set aside.
(iii) The applicants be held entitled to the consequential benefits of difference in arrears of pay and allowance from the date of their promotion till the date actual payment is made with interest.
(iv) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of relief to the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) That the cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicants."
2. In brief, the applicants joined the service of the respondents as Nursing Orderly in pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- on 09.05.2011 and 13.05.2011 respectively. Thereafter, they were promoted as Plaster Assistant vide order dated 21.11.2018 in Level - III pay matrix (pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with GP Rs. 2000) instead of Level - IV pay matrix (pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with GP of Rs. 2400/-.
3. The controversy with regard to the promotional pay scale to B SHRI B SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA2025.10.06 12:34:22+05'30' Item 37/C-2 3 OA 648/2021 the Plaster Assistant working in different Hospitals of ESIC came into consideration before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3227/2011, wherein the Tribunal held that the Plaster Assistants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 instead of Rs. 3200-4900 vide order/judgment dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure A-2). The said order of the Tribunal has been implemented by the respondents, however, they restricted the benefit of the applicants in the case only.
4. The applicant further relied upon another order dated 19.09.2016 passed in OA No. 3185/2016 titled 'Arvind and Ors. vs. ESIC & Ors.", wherein the Tribunal allowed the OA in favour of the employees and various categories were held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with GP of Rs. 2400. The said order of the Tribunal was implemented by the respondents vide order dated 08.12.2017. Furthermore, the applicant relied upon the order dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure A-3) in OA No. 541/2015 titled Rakesh Yadav and Ors. vs. ESIC & Ors. and the same was decided following the earlier decision in OA No. 3227/2011.
5. Aggrieved by non-grant of same pay scale to the applicants, the applicants preferred representation dated 18.10.2020 for redressal of their grievances. The applicants also personally met Respondent No. 2 with request for extending the benefit of orders, however, their claim was denied. B SHRI B SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA2025.10.06 12:34:22+05'30' Item 37/C-2 4 OA 648/2021
6. Written statement has been filed by the respondents contending the claim of the applicants. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the OA by contending that the judgments relied upon by the applicants are not applicable to them as the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 has been granted to the applicants only provisionally subject to outcome of the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is also still pending adjudication. To such contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed before us a judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 980/2019 wherein the following order has been passed:-
"Heard. The matter is covered by the order of the CAT, Principal Bench in OA.No.3227/2011 order dated 19.12.2013 at Annexure A-1 and Chennai Bench order in OA.No.427/2017 dated 04.02.2019 which is at Annexure A-3, and vide Annexure A-2, a representation has been given. Vide Annexure A-4, respondents has taken a stand that the various orders of several Benches of this Tribunal are applicable only to the applicants therein. There is no merit in this contention, as the applicant is similarly placed in all respects. Therefore, we see no further reason to extend the proceedings.
2. Shri M.V. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents states that a Writ Petition is apparently filed against the Principal Bench order dated 19.12.2013 and the same is pending. The OA is allowed and the respondents shall issue necessary orders within a period of next two months and the order may be held to be subject to the final outcome in the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. No costs."
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the pleadings available on record.
8. In view of the aforesaid, to meet the principles of natural justice and for parity, we are of the opinion that the OA may be B SHRI B SHRI AKSHAYA AKSHAYA2025.10.06 12:34:22+05'30' Item 37/C-2 5 OA 648/2021 disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal as the matter is squarely covered by the orders relied upon by the applicants as Annexure A-2 and A-3. There is no merit in the contention of the respondents as the applicants are similarly placed in all respects. Therefore, we see no further reason to extend the proceedings.
9. The OA is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid and the respondents shall issue necessary orders within a period of two months and the order may be held to be subject to final outcome in the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. No order as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/akshaya/
B SHRI
B SHRI AKSHAYA
AKSHAYA2025.10.06
12:34:22+05'30'