Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pramod Kumar Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 7 August, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.206/2025 with O.A.
No.3749/2018 & O.A. No.1565/2020
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: 07.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No.206/2025
1. ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH, S/o Vinay
Kumar Singh R/o A-71,
A 71, Shiv Park, Nangloi,
New Delhi - 110 041 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Upper Division Clerk,
Directorate (Medical) Delhi, M.S Building,
ESIC Hospital Complex, Basaidarapur, New
Delhi - 110 015
2. SHASHI BHOOSHAN JAISWAL, S/o
Subash Chandra Jaiswal R/o D-137,
D 137, Jhilmil
Colony, Delhi-110
Delhi 110 095 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Upper Division Clerk, IG
ESIC Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi - 110 095
3. DEEPAK KUMAR,
KUMAR, S/o Ram Rattan, R/o
201/28A, Ramchander Gali, Adarsh Mohalla,
Maujpur, New Delhi - 110 053 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Upper Division Clerk, IG
ESIC Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi - 110 095
4. BIMLASH KUMAR MEENA, S/o Chittar
Mal Meena, R/o A-81,
A 81, Gupta Colony, Rohin
Rohini,
Sector 26, Delhi-110
Delhi 110 042 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Upper Division Clerk, IG
ESIC Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi - 110095
5. SACHIN KUMAR, S/o Dharam Pal
Singh,R/o 122, MIG Flats, East of Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110
Delhi 110 093 PRESENTLY
Page 1 of 50
WORKING AS: Upper Division Cle Clerk, IG
ESIC Hospital, Jhilmil, Delhi 110095
6. ARPIT AGARWAL, S/o Parkash Chander
Agarwal, R/o 594/38, Onkar Nagar [C], Tri
Nagar, Delhi - 110 35 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Upper Division
Clerk,Directorate (Medical) Delhi, M.S
Building, ESIC Hospital Complex,
Basaidarapur,
asaidarapur, New Delhi 110 015
7. SURAJ SHARMA, S/o Pawan Kumar
Kumar,R/o
3909/16, Kanhaiya Nagar, Delhi-110
Delhi 110
035PRESENTLY WORKING AS: Upper
Division Clerk, ESI HOSPITAL, Basai
Darapur, New Delhi 110 015
8. AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, S/o Ramavtar
Gupta, R/o 144, Patelpuri, Kankar Khera,
Meerut Cantt. Uttar Pradesh -
250001.PRESENTLY WORKING AS: Upper
Division Clerk, ESIC Hospital, Sector 2
Rajendra Nagar,Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh 2010052
9. VIKRANT VERMA, S/o Ramesh Chand,
R/o T-45,
T Jain Colony, Uttam Nagar,
gar, New
Delhi 110 059 PRESENTLY WORKING
Delhi-110
AS:Lower Division Clerk, ESI Dispensary
Near Vardhman Mall, Sector - 7, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110
Delhi 075
10. SAURABH, S/o Charan Singh, R/o 108,
Gangotri Street, Vishnu Garden, Kankhal,
Haridwar, Uttarakhand -249 404
PRESENTLY WORKING AS: Upper
Division Clerk, Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Hospital A-3,
A 3, Tulsi Marg, Sector
24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301
11. KAPIL DUBEY, S/o Avdhesh Kumar
Dubey R/o Ishanpur, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh -
202 002 PRESENTLY WORKING AS: Upper
Division Clerk, Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Hospital A-3,
A 3, Tulsi Marg, Sector
24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301
Page 2 of 50
12. SHALINDER KUMAR, S/o C.P Singh
R/o D-163,
D Street No. 3/2 Ext-2,
2, Nangloi,
New Delhi - 110 041 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Lower Division ClarkESI
Hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, 110 015
13. SACHIN, S/o Narendra Kumar R/o
9/4088, Gali No. 17, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi
Nagar, New Delhi-110
Delhi 110 031 PRESENTLY
WORKING AS: Multi-Tasking
Multi Tasking Staff,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Nand
Nagri,
agri, New Delhi 110 093.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Prateek Dhanda)
Versus
1. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Through its Director
General, Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade
Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New Delhi
Delhi-110 002
Email: [email protected]
2. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE NSURANCE
CORPORATION, Through its Director [E
- V], Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade
Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New Delhi
Delhi-110 002
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DELHI, ESIC,
Through its Regional Director, 3rd and 4th
Floor, Rajendra Bhawan,
Bhawan, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi-110
Delhi 008
4. DIRECTORATE [MEDICAL] DELHI,
Through Directorate (Medical) Delhi, M.S
Building, ESIC Hospital Complex,
Basaidarapur, New Delhi - 110 015
5. UNION OF INDIA, Through Secretary, Ministr
Ministry
of Labor & Employment, Sharam, Shakti Bhawan,
5 Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Mr. R
Ronak Karanpuria,)
Page 3 of 50
O.A. No.3749/2018
1. ESIC Headquarters Employees' Union
Through its General Secretary Sh. Vivek
Vashisht S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma R/o 33,
Baldev Park, Parwana Road, Delhi-110051
Delhi 110051
Office At-
At ESIC Headquarters, Panchdeep
Bhawan, CIG Marg, New Delhi - 110002
Aged about 41 years (Group 'B/C')
(Association)
2. Yogesh S/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o House No.
204, Ward No. 05, Kharkhoda, Sonipat -
131402 Aged about 28 years (Group 'C')
(MTS - ESIC)
3. Satish Kumar Mann S/o Sh. Baljit Singh
Mann R/o 256, Khera Khurd, Delhi - 110082
Aged about 50 years (Group 'C')(LDC - ESIC)
4. Harendra Singh S/o Sh. Jagvir Singh R/o H.
No. 210, Ext. 1, Shalimar
Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201005 Aged
about 42 years (Group 'C') (UDC - ESIC)
5. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey S/o Sh. Jagdish
Pandey R/o H. No. 90, ESIC Colony, Sector -
56, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301 Aged about
41 years (Group 'C') (Assistant
( - ESIC).
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Director General Panchdeep
Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110002
Delhi 110002
2. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Joint Director, Panchdeep
Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110002
Delhi 110002
Page 4 of 50
3. Union of India Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt.
of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Chawla with Ms
Ms. Kashish Bansal,)
O.A. No.1565/2020
1. Pramod Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Gopal Singh
R/o529/495/1, Nai Basti Rahim Nagar,
Mahanagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 226006
(Age 31 Years) Group 'C'
2. Amiy Kumar S/o Sh. Mukhleshwar
Srivastava R/o C-155,
C Gali No. 8, Village
Wazirabad, New Delhi-84
Delhi 84 (Age 26 Years)
Group 'C'
3. Prashant Kumar Baliyan S/o Sh. Rishi Pal
Singh R/090, Kailashpuram-II,
Kailashpuram II, Govind Puram,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201013 (Age 29
Years) Group 'C'
4. Akhlesh Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Lakshmi
Narayan Meena R/oVillage Khedi Ghatam,
Post Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Karauli,
Rajasthan
Rajasthan-322230 (Age 30 Years) Group 'C'
5. Mohit Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam R/o
W-30/863,
30/863, Street No.-07
No. Near D.S. Arya
School Patel Nagar Bahadurgarh, Haryana
Haryana-
124507 (Age 30 Years) Group 'C'
6. Yashpal Kalra S/o Sh. Parbhu Dayal Kalra
R/0958, Sector-9A,
Sector Gurugram-122001,
122001,
Haryana (Age 45 Years) Group 'C'
7. Nitin Papnai S/o Sh. Harish Chadra Papnai
R/o A-2/3
A 2/3 West Karawal Nagar Delhi
Delhi-94 (Age
26 Years) Group 'C'
8. Bicky Anand S/o Sh. Binoda
Binoda Nand Dubey
R/o M-57/58,
M 57/58, Ground Floor (M), Gali No.
No.-5
New Mahavir Nagar New Delhi-18
Delhi (Age 29
Years) Group 'C'
Page 5 of 50
9. Tarun Singh Sisodia S/o Sh. Karan Singh
Sisodia R/o House No.-95
No. 95 Subhash Chowk
Bakhtawar Pur Delhi-36
Delhi 36 (Age 28 Years)
Group 'C'
10. Vinod Giri
Giri S/o Sh. Shad Giri R/o House
No.--135 Second Floor Pkt G-55 Sector
Sector-16
Rohini, Rohini Sector-15
Sector 15 New Delhi
Delhi-89 (Age
38 Years) Group 'C'
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Director General Panchdeep
Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi-110002
Delhi 110002
2. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Joint Director Panchdeep Bhawan,
CIG Road, New Delhi-110002
Delhi
3. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Additional Commissioner and
Regional Director 3rd and 4th Floor, Rajender
Bhawan, Rajender Place, New Delhi-
Delhi-08
4. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Directorate (Medical) Delhi 5th
and 6th Floor, Admn, Block ESIH,
Basiadarapur, New Delhi-15
Delhi
5. Union of India Through its Secretary
Secretary
Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt. of
India Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New
Delhi
Delhi-110001
6. Ankit Singh Poonia Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 30 years S/o Sh.
Bikram Singh Poonia R/o H No.B/51, Lane
No.5--B, New Sainik Vihar Fazalpur,, Meerut,
UP-250001
250001
7. Vikrant Rana Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 28 years S/o Sh.
D.S. Rana R/o 57/A, Sector 4, DIZ Area, Gole
Market New Delhi-110001
Delhi
8. Amit Kumar Sinha Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 29 yeares S/o Sh.
Page 6 of 50
S. Sinha R/o K-33,
33, 4th Floor Wazirabad
Village Delhi-110009
Delhi
9. Satish Sethi Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 43 years S/o Sh.
C.R. SethiR/o 1606 Outrem Lines, GTB Nagar
New Delhi-110009
Delhi
10. Akash Yadav Age 23 years Working as
Head Clerk/Assistant in ESIC
ESI S/o Sh. R.C.
Yadav R/o C/o V Yadav, Tirwa Road,
Kannauj, U.P. 209728
11. Ms Kiran Bilonia Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 31 years D/o Sh.
Jugal Kishore R/o B-774,
B 774, Madipur Colony
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
12. Rakesh Meena Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 28 years S/o Sh.
Clerk/Assistant
B.L. Meena R/o C/o Sh Sohan lal Meena RZF
RZF-
472, Pole No.72, Raj Nagar-II
Nagar Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077
Delhi
13. Amandeep Singh Narula Working as Head
Clerk/Assistant in ESIC Age 29 years S/o Sh.
C Singh R/o A-1539,
A 3rd Floor Fatehh Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Padma Kr. S, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
Page 7 of 50
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Sin a common question of law arises in the present batch of Since OAs, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are primarily extracted from O.A. No. 3749/2018.
O.A. No.3749/2018 No.3749/2012. In the present O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders/actions of the respondents dated 12.07.2018 placed at Annexure A/1 and A/2 and
(b) Accord all consequential benefits.
(c) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(d) Pass any order/relief/direction (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."
2.1 Learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to the earlier rlier orders orders dated 04.10.2018, 27.11.2020 and 20.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present O.A. The same are reproduced below:
(i) " Order dated 04.10.2018 Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
MA No. 4179/2018 filed for joining together is allowed.
OA No. 3749/2018The first applicant is the Union and the applicant nos. 22-5 are individuals working in different capacities. It is submitted that the service conditions of the employees of respondents - Employee State Insurance Corporation are regulated by Employee State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1959, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the ESI Act, Page 8 of 50 1948. Fifth schedule to the said Regulations provide different appointing/disciplina appointing/disciplinary/appellate authorities in respect of different groups of employees of the ESI Corporation. The respondents corporation now by virtue of the impugned memorandum Annexure A/1 memorandum dated 12.07.2018 changed the said authorities by way of executive instruction. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the service conditions of the employees of the respondent - ESIC are governed by the statutory regulations, the respondent corporation cannot change the same by way of an executive instruction instruction.
2. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel Sh. Acharya Santosh Prasad Chaurasiya accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and seeks time to file counter. Issue notice to respondent no. 3 by dasti. Applicants' counsel shall file proof of service before the next date of hearing. List on 22.10.2018.
3. In the meanwhile, in view of the prima facie case made out by the applicants, there shall be stay of the impugned order. Order dasti.
(ii) Order dated 27.11.2020 M.A./100/2118/2020 The present MA has been filed by nine persons i.e. ESIC D (M) Delhi Employees' Union, seeking therein for impleadment in the aforesaid OA. Learned counsel for the applicants in MA, submits that the aforesaid OA has been filed to challenge the order dated 12.07.2018 whereby the official respondents have issued policy directives to the effect that the ESIC Headquarter Officer shall be the "Appointing and Disciplinary Authority" in respect of the ministerial staff of three offices in Delhi namely (a) ESIC Headquarter Office, (b) Regional Office, Delhi, and (c) Directorate (Medical), Delhi, and for the unification of the cadre seniority list in respect of various staff/cadre in these three offices.
Learned counsel for the app applicant in MA further submits that the aforesaid decision dated 12.07.2018 of the official respondents has granted certain rights and benefits to the applicant in the present MA and similarly placed persons and if the same is interfered by the Tribunal, the applicants in the present MA are likely to be adversely affected and accordingly they are necessary party to be impleaded in the aforesaid OA.
Pursuant to the notice issued in above MA, the applicants in the OA have filed reply. The official respondents ondents have not filed their reply. However, learned counsel for the official respondents submits that he has no objection if the present MA is allowed.
Page 9 of 50Learned counsel for the applicant in OA, Sh. Ajesh Luthra (respondents' counsel in above MA), wit with the assistance of the reply filed, has vehemently opposed the present MA. He submits that the applicants are neither necessary party nor even proper party in the matter. He further submits that the resolution relied upon by the applicants herein in the MMA, does not disclose as to who has been authorized to represent the said association (who are represented by an individual as Applicant No. 1 in the present MA, and not by association) and therefore in the absence of proper resolution/authorization, applic applicant no. 1 in the present MA, cannot be joined as party in any case.
There is no objection on the present MA on behalf of the official respondents in the OA. It is also not in dispute that the order/decision dated 12.07.2018 of the official respondent dent is under challenge in the present OA.
Heard.
It cannot be adjudicated at this stage as to whether the impugned decision dated 12.07.2018 is sustainable in the eyes of law or not.
However, once the applicants in the present MA are of the considered view that if the said impugned order/decision Dt 12.7.2018 is interfered, certain benefits and privileges to the present applicants in MA may be jeopardised. It therefore, cannot be construed that their impleadment is not necessary bebefore the legality of such a decision is decided. More so, the official respondents have not objected to the present MA.
However, we are also of the view that in the absence of decision/resolution in favour of said association, it cannot be impleaded in the present OA.
In view of the aforesaid, the present MA is partly allowed. The applicant no. 2 to 9 in MA, are impleaded in the present OA. Learned counsel for the applicants in the present OA, Shri Ajesh Luthra seeks and is allowed three days' s' time to file amended Memo of Parties.
Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant in the present MA, submits that he does not wish to file any counter reply to the present OA and he would adopt and reply based upon the reply already filed on behalf of the official respondents in the OA.
Learned counsels for the official respondents in the present OA further submit that an identical OA No. 1565/2020 on the same issue is fixed for hearing on 09.12.2020.
In view of the aforesaid, list the present OA also on 09.12.2020.
Page 10 of 50(iii) Order dated 20.03.2023 Learned proxy counsel for the applicants seeks an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is busy with some other commitment.
Learned counsel for the respondents impresses upon us need for early hearing and adjudication of this matter on the ground that the applicants are enjoying the benefit of an interim protection awarded to them vide order dated 04.10.2018. They argue that it is nearly 4 1/2 years ssince by virtue of this interim order operation of memorandum dated 12.07.2018 has been stayed, which has resulted in not only administrative complications but also affected the interest of the organisation and the private respondents. Elaborately they submit it that the process of promotion of employees has been withheld for a long period of over four years on account of the said order. The memorandum impugned in the present O.A. only seeks to give effect to the decision taken by the ESI Corporation in the int interest of rationalization of the cadre. ' We are in agreement that since the interim order has stayed the operation of the impugned order for a long period of time, the matter deserves to be heard at an early date. Accordingly, the matter be listed on 19.0 19.04.2023.
It should be listed within the first five matters listed under the heading 'Hearing'.
2.2 Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the he first applicant is the Union and the applicant nos. 22-5 are the individuals working in different capacities.
2.3 He further submitted that the service conditions of the employees of the respondents,, i.e., Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) are regulated by Employee State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1959, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the ESI Act, 1948.
2.4 The Fifth Schedule to the afore aforesaid Regulations specifies different appointing, disciplinary, and appellate authorities, referred to as "CONTROLLING "CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES," for various groups of employees of the ESI Corporation. The applicants herein were Page 11 of 50 employed at the ESIC Headquarters. The challenge raised by the applicants pertains to their service at the Headquarters prior to the impugned memorandum dated dated 12.07.2018, wherein it was approved that a combined seniority cadre for the following staff categories be maintained maintained:-
i. Assistant/ Head Clerk (Asst./HC) ii. Upper Division Clerk (UDC) iii. Lower Division Clerk (LDC) iv. Multi- Tasking Staff (MTS 2.5 The respondent corporation, by virtue of the impugned memorandum Annexure A/1 dated 12.07.2018, merged the "CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES" by way of an executive instruction. Learned counsel counsel for the applicants submitted that since the service conditions of the employees of the respondent ESIC are governed by statutory regulations, the respondent corporation cannot alter the same through an executive instruction without providing the employees an opportunity of being heard.
2.6 The present OA has been filed to challenge the orde order dated 12.07.2018, whereby the official respondents issued policy directives declaring that the ESIC Headquarters Officer shall be the "Appointing and Disciplinary Authority" (i.e., the "CONTROLLING AUTHORITY") for the ministerial staff of three offices iin Delhi, namely:
(a) ESIC Headquarter Office, Page 12 of 50
(b) Regional Office, Delhi, and
(c) Directorate (Medical), Delhi, and for the unification of the cadre seniority list in respect of various staff/cadre in these three offices.
2.7 Learned counsel contended that there are 17 Regional Offices across the country, but by virtue of the impugned notification, only the offices in Delhi have been merged with the Headquarters as well as the Directorate (Medical), and their staff has been consolidated.
This decision was approved as per the minutes of the 174th committee meeting, which is also a subject matter of challenge.
2.8 The appointment of the applicants was governed by the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, which are framed under the relevant relevant statutory power. The relevant provision appears at page 60 of the O.A.,, which reads as under
under:-
"No. 2.2.1.56 Estt. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub--section section (1) of Section 97 read with clause (xxi) of sub sub-section (2) and sub-section sub (2-A) A) of that Section and sub sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 19 1948), the Employees' State Insurance Corporation hereby makes, "with the approval of the Central Government", the following regulations, namely."
namely.
2.9 Learned counsel also referred to 'The Fifth Schedule' of Regulation 4, 12 & 19 (at page 121 of the OA) and further referred to page 122 of the O.A. Relevant portion of the same, reads as under:-
2 3 4 5 6 All the I. In all the Regional - To impose Director/ remaining regions, except Officer-II/ minor/ Administratio Group 'C' sub-regions in Director (Medi n Page 13 of 50 and Group Maharashtra and cal) major 'D' Staff. Tamilnadu:
Delhi/ penalty
Medical Superi
ntendents/
Director (Medi
Regional Director / cal) NOIDA
Administrative
Officer-II/Director
(Medical)
Delhi/Medical
Superintendents /
Director
(Medical)NOIDA.
2.10 Learned counsel contended that the regulations which are the subject matter of the present case are statutory in nature, and being subordinate legislation, cannot be substituted merely by an Executive Committee, even though approved by the concerned effective Committee or by the approval of the Corporation, and without following the due process of law.
2.11 Learned counsel argued that the the combined seniority list concerning the applicants could not have been put into detriment, and the same has also not been published in the official Gazette in terms of Section 97 sub-section sub section 3 of 1948, as amended upto 2010 till filing of the OA.
OA He stated that pursuant to thee stay granted by this Tribunal, the respondents published the said policy decision by way of Gazette Notification dated dated 17.11.2018. He further stated that even assuming for the sake of the arguments the policy has been published by way of Gazette Notification, Notifica it is not in consonance with the Section 17 sub sub-
section 2 of the Provision of 1948 Act.
Page 14 of 502.12 He also contended that the merging of the three (3) different offices has, in fact, resulted in the merging of the cadres themselves, which amounts to amending amending the regulation without following the due process of law.
2.13 Learned counsel added that there is a broad distinction between a combined cadre and a seniority list, if a combined cadre is adopted as in the present matter it will naturally affect the seniority and changes in service conditions of the employees of three different offices.
2.14. He further contended that even otherwise there w were 7 (seven) Directors, and without naming any specific disciplinary authority, there cannot be multiple disciplinary disciplinary authorities qua the combined cadre as published by the respondents.
2.15. By way of illustration, learned counsel also pointed out that, as per the offer of appointment to the post of Upper Divisional Clerk cum UDC/UDC/Cashier, UDC/UD Cashier, memorandum dated 27.
27.11.2017, Clause 7 stipulates as under:
under "7. If any declaration given or information furnished by him/her is proved to be false/fake or if he/she is found to have willfully suppressed any material information during the service period at any time, he/she will be liable for removal from services and other actions as further liable for as deemed fit by ESIC."
2.16 Likewise, he also referred to Clause 5 in respect of the ESIC Headquarters, which reads as follows::
follows:
5. In accordance with the relevant rules in force in regard to the recruitment to services under Government of India:Page 15 of 50
2.17 He contended that there cannot be unification in terms of the offer of appointment without following the due process, as three zones have three different birthmarks with different natures of appointment/ job profiles, profile there cannot be unification. There is a clear and distinct division of zones, with the respective offices, i.e. headquarters, Director (Medical) as well as Regional Of Office.
2.18 He further contended that in compliance of the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 2853/2015, an affidavit was filed by the respondents, relevant paras of which reads as under:-
under:
"4. That the Petitioner-herein herein as being declared the "Head of the Department", is authorized to exercise such powers and functions which are attached to the post by the Government of India. That the said post confers upon the holder of the post both administrative and financial powers delegated by the Standing Committee as per the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ("ESI Act"). That Sl. No. 20 of the Rules of Business empowers the Director General to declare an officer to be the "Head of Office".
In view thereof, the regional offices are formed all over the country in order to monitor the working of ESIC on a de-centralised centralised basis. That the cadre upto the post of 'Assistant' including the post of 'Lower Division Clerk' ("LDC") is a regional cadre and the recruitment to the said posts is done region-wise wise and the same is clearly stated by the Petitioner-Corporation Corporation in all its advertisements.
5. That under Section 17 of the ESI Act, ESIC (Staff & Conditions of service) Regulations, 1959 were made for staff with the approval of the Central Government. That as per the Fifth Schedule of the said Regulation, the Regional Director or D (M)D are the appointing authorities for the posts upto 'Grade C' cadres. That in accordance with the Delegation Rules, the Regional Director acts as the "Head of office" and is vested with full powers to fill up the Group 'C' and 'D' posts, up to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant. Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the LDC Cadre is a regional cadre and the same is maintained by the concerned Regional level/office.
Page 16 of 506. That the concerned Regional Director is vested with the power to fill up the sanctioned posts of LDC up to Assistant cadre and the said power is delegated upon him by and in accordance with the RRs. That it is clear from the RRs of the posts up to the HC/Assistant that the D(M)D has been delegated with the powers to act as an appointing authority. In addition, the RRs also indicate that up to the posts of Assistant cadres, the concerned Regional Director is the Chairman of DPC.
7.. That the post of LDC is filled up in accordance with the RRs on a regional basis, as per the powers delegated to the Head of the office. That in Delhi, there are three separate offices namely Headquarters, Directorate (Medical) Delhi (hereinafter referre referred as "D(M)D") and Regional Office, Delhi. That the 'Head of office', exercises powers as per the Delegation of powers/Rules of Business. That the Headquarters Office is involved in policy-making and to monitor the working of all the field offices. That the nature of the work dealt with in these three offices is entirely distinct from one another. Therefore, they are working with different 'Head of Office' and the seniority/promotion up to the Assistant cadre is regional cadre. That all these three offices w were set up during different period of time for different purposes and the Headquarters Office of ESIC is treated as a separate unit. That it is pertinent to note that the Headquarters of all the major departments including the concemed department is considered ered as a separate unit owing to the distinct nature of work performed. In other words, the nature of work performed in the Headquarters of the organization is distinct from the work performed in the field offices.
8. That the LDC cadre is a regional cad cadre up to the post of Assistant and the same has been the position since more than 40 years and the seniority and promotions are made accordingly in the respective region/office. That as per the policy issued from the Headquarters Office vide Office Memorandum dum No. 7(3) 7(3)-1/74-E-IB C.II dated 15.11.1980 the promotion of Assistant is considered on the basis of regional seniority. That as the Assistant cadre is a regional cadre. LDC cadre cannot be considered as an All-India India cadre as the same is lower than the AsAssistant cadre. That in any event if the LDC cadre is considered as an All-India India cadre then the same will have wide and hazardous and unwanted ramifications. That it is pertinent to note that all the regional offices have been allotted certain number of sanctioned ctioned posts separately based on their functional requirements.
9. That the procedure or method adopted by the Petitioner-corporation corporation for the purpose of allocation of cadre on appointment is clear, unambiguous and has been consistent over the years. Upon appointment, the LDCs are posted in the region vis vis-à-vis their indent or requisition in accordance with the available vacancies in the concerned region. That it is pertinent to note the clear Page 17 of 50 distinction between the appointment orders issued by concerned appointing authorities for the regional cadres and the concerned appointing authorities for the All All-India cadre. The appointment orders/offer of appointment in respect of the regional cadres are being issued by the concerned appointing authorities up to th the Assistant cadre which includes the posts of MTS, LDC, UDC and Assistant. Whereas, the appointment orders/offer of appointment in respect of All-India India cadre, i.e., II/Social Security Officer and above is being issued at the level of Headquarters Office as their appointing authorities are in the Headquarters Office."
2.19 Mr. Luthra, Luthra learned counsel, further contended that the above submissions before the Hon'ble High Court would clearly indicate that the advertisements clearly indicated at all times that there is no unified cadre for the posts up to the post of 'Assistant'. The advertisements invited applications separately for the posts on the basis of region. A unified cadre for the posts up to the position of 'Assistant' is not feasible and would adversely affect the functioning of the Corporation.
Hence, the applicants applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in present OA.
3. Mr. Amit Chawla, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted bmitted that the Gazette notification has not been challenged till date.
3.1 He relied upon the following averments made in the additional affidavit dated 26.11.2024 filed on behalf of the respondents:
"5. In While the decision of the Corporation on the issue of Common Seniority is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court, whereby the power of Director General was questioned, it is hereby clarified under Sr. no- 20 of delegation of powers of Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation: -
HEAD OF OFFICE: Full power to declare an Officer to be the Head of Office A copy of Delegation of Power of Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation dated 15.09.1999 circulated vide "powers delegatedd to the DG, ESIC ESIC.Page 18 of 50
6. That also, during the course of arguments, the Hon'ble Bench had directed the respondents' counsel to place on record various documents, such note sheets, minutes, etc. which formed part of the approval process for the decision of the issuance of the Common Seniority List, which has been placed on record.
record."
3.2 He also placed reliance upon on the decision dated 24.07.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 2853/2015 in the case of Director General, ESIC vs. Saurabh Kumar & Anr Anr. He also relied upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Co ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1219/2018 with O.A. No.1009/2018 in the case of Indian Statistical Service Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors Ors.
pronounced on 26.07.2018. The relevant pa paras of the judgment read as under:
"18. Another important issue raised by the applicants is that the impugned Annexures A-1 & A-22 Notifications have been issued with the approval of the Cabinet Secretary and not of the Union Cabinet. It is stated that the Annexure A A-7 Notification dated 08.05.2006 notifying the terms and conditions for the post of CSI was issued with the approvall of the Union Cabinet. It was, thus, argued by Mr. Rungta that the impugned Notifications are flawed and lack legitimacy. On this time, we are of the view that how Notifications are to be issued is to be decided by the Executive (Government). As long as a Notification issued is owned by the Government before any judicial forum, its authenticity, validity and legitimacy should not be questioned.
19. We do take note of the fact that the Search Committee, in terms of the relaxations provided in paragraph (5) of the Annexure A-1 Notification, has already decided to consider all the ISS officers, who are in the grade of HAG and above and who have applied for the post even if they have crossed the age of 55 years. This decision of the Search Committee is perfect perfectly in order and satisfies the requirements of the equality principle enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution."
3.3. In the written submission filed by Mr. Amit Chawla, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the pres present case pertains to the issue of merging the seniority lists of MTS, LDC, UDC, and Assistant cadres for the three offices of the ESIC in Delhi--Headquarters, Headquarters, Directorate (Medical), and the Regional Page 19 of 50 Office--into into one common seniority list for the entire state of Delhi.
This policy decision, which was issued through an order dated 12.07.2018, aims to align Delhi with other states where a common seniority list is maintained for similar cadres. The respondents contend that this merger of seniority lists was a lon long-pending demand from employees in the Regional Office and Directorate (Medical), who felt that maintaining separate seniority lists was unnecessary, given that all three offices are located within Delhi and employees are recruited through the same examination.
examination. It is further submitted that the decision to have a common seniority list was a policy decision made in the larger public interest and is not arbitrary. The decision was taken after a careful review by the highest policy policy-making body of the ESIC, which which includes the Hon'ble Union Minister for Labour and Employment, Members of Parliament, and the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The respondents assert that judicial review of this decision is not permissible unless there is a claim of arbitrariness arbitrariness or mala fide intent, which is absent in this case.
It is also submitted that the decision to amend the seniority list and merge the cadres was in accordance with the legislative framework under the ESIC Act. The process of amending the regulat regulations, formulated under Section 97 of the Act, was initiated, and a Gazette notification was published on 17.11.2018, followed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023. The respondents further clarify that after the publication of the Gazette notification, the original order of Page 20 of 50 12.07.2018 stands superseded. The respondents argue that the establishment of a common seniority list is in line with the requirements of the organization and is consistent with the practice followed in other states. They also contend that this decision does not violate the procedures or provisions of the ESIC Act and that the merger of seniority lists is a legitimate policy decision intended to ensure equal opportunity for promotions promotions among employees of the three offices in Delhi. Finally, the respondents assert that the notification issued by the government regarding the merger of seniority lists should not be interfered with by the courts, as the notification is within the purview purview of the executive's authority.
O.A. No.206/20254. In the present O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the Circular dated 02.01.2025 titled as 'Conduct of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Assistant/Head Clerk, UDC, Stenographer and LDC'issued by the Respondent No.1;
(ii) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the Circular dated 02.01.2025 titled as 'Conduct of Limited Departmental Competitivee Examination (LDCE) for the post of SSO, Assistant/Head Clerk, Personal Assistant, UDC, Stenographer and LDC -regarding.' regarding.' issued by the Respondent No. 1;
iii) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the Circular dated 03.01.2025 titled as 'Conduc 'Conduct of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the posts of SSO, Assistant/Head Clerk, UDC/UDC-Cashier, Cashier, PA and LDC in ESIC regarding.
issued by Respondent No. 3;
(iv) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing the Circular dated 08.01.2025 titled as 'Conduct of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the posts of SSO, Assistant/Head Clerk, UDC/UDC -Cashier, Cashier, PA and LDC in ESIC regarding.' issued by Respondent No. 3;
(v) Issue an appropriate direction or order directing the Respondentss to hold one single Limited Departmental Competitive Page 21 of 50 Examination for each of the posts of Assistant/Head Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, Lower Division Clerk for the Delhi region which includes Headquarters, Regional Office Delhi and Directorate [Medical] Delhi lhi as per Entry 89, 126, 147 and 161 of the Second Schedule read with Regulations 3(2), 4, 9(3), 12(1), 13(3) and 18 of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023 read with Employees' State Insurance Corporation poration (Staff & Conditions of Service) Amendment Regulations, 2018;
(vi) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
4.1 Mr. Prateek Danda, learned counsel for the applicant applicant, argued that the Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2018 has not been challenged.
4.2 He further stated that initially, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1959 were in place. He contended that the present notification was, in fact, an amendment to the Regulations 1959.
4.3 He submitted that the Regulations, 1959 are now not in force, which have been superseded by ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation 2023 (Annexure A13). Preamble of the same reads eads as under:
"No. Z-24/14/1/2020-DPCDPC (E.I). -- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section section (1) of section 97 read with clause (xxi) of sub-section (2) and sub-section section (2A) of that section and sub sub-
section (2) of section 17 of the Employees' State In Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), and in supersession of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession."Page 22 of 50
4.4 He further relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Roshan Lal Tandon & Anr. Vs. Union of Ind India, AIR 1967 SC 1889. The relevant para of the same reads as under:
"6. We pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that at there was a contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade 'D' and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board.
ard. It was said that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25, 1958, Annexure 'B', laid down that promotion to Grade 'C' from Grade 'D' was to be based on seniority seniority-cum- suitability and this condition of service was contractual and could not be altered red thereafter to the prejudice of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no warrant for this argument. It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or off office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal posposition of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hallmark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted ranted to the President and the Governor under Article
310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirelyy different,something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned. The matter is clearly stated by Salmond and Williams on Contracts as follows:
"So we may find both contractual and statusstatus-obligations produced by the same transaction. The one transaction may result in the creation not only of obligations defined by the parties and so pertaining to the sphere of contract but also and co concurrently of obligations defined by the law itself, and so pertaining to the sphere of status. A contract of service between employer and employee, while for the most part pertaining exclusively to the sphere of contract, pertains also to that of status sso far as the law itself has seen fit to attach to this relation compulsory incidents, such as liability to pay compensation for accidents." The extent to which the law is content to leave matters within the domain of Page 23 of 50 contract to be determined by the exerciexercise of the autonomous authority of the parties themselves, or thinks fit to bring the matter within the sphere of status by authoritatively determining for itself the contents of the relationship, is a matter depending on considerations of public policy. In such contracts as those of service the tendency in modern times is to withdraw the matter more and more from the domain of contract into that of status."
4.5 He relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors. (2006) 2SCC
482. The relevant para of the same reads as under:
"16. The nature of right possessed by a government servant and also his status after his appointment to a post under the Government was considered by a Constitution Bench in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and it was held as under in AIR para 6 of the reports: (SCR p. 195 A A-H) 4.6 He further relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of PU Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors. (2003) 2SCC 632. The relevant para of the same reads as under:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abo creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promoti promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligib eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departme departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to ti time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing Page 24 of 50 conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
4.7 He also relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of SP Shivprasad Pipal vs. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC
598. The relevant para of the same reads as under:
"19. However, it is possible that by reason of such a merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in consequence. But this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. This Court iin Union of India v. S.L. Dutta² examined this contention. In S.L. Dutta case a change in the promotional policy was challenged on the ground that as a result, service conditions of the respondent were adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakanı Anant Kulkarnit this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service."
4.8 Furthermore, he relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bihar State Govt. Secondary School Teacher's Association vs. Bihar Education Service Association (2012) 13 SCC 33. The relevant para of the same reads as under:
"46. Much emphasis was laid by the Bihar Education Service Association on the absence of common service rules, to oppose the merger of the subordinate service employees into the State Service Class II. In this context we must note that the decision to merge the cadre is a matter of policy as held by this Court in S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India.. It is for the State to decide as to which cadres should be merged so long as the decision is not arbitrary or unreasonable. As stated earlier, the Resolution dated 77-7-2006 is well reasoned and justified, and cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable to be hit by Article 14. It deserved to be upheld. It is possible that the merger may affect the prospects of some employees but this cannot be a reason to set aside the merger. Once the State Government has taken the necessary decision to merge the two cadres in a given case, the State Government is expected to follow it by framing the necessary rules."Page 25 of 50
4.9 Learned counsel also relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of DG, ESIC v. Saurabh Kumar - (2019) SCC OnLine Del 9307 and Asha Rani vs. UOI & Ors. - (2021) SCC OnLine Del 3361.
4.10 Learned counsel for the applicants applicant also relied upon Section 97 (1) (2)(xxi) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which reads as under:
"97. Power of Corporation to make regulations. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(xxi) the method of recruitment, pay and allowances, discipline, superannuation benefits and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Corporation other than the Director G General and the Financial Commissioner."
4.11 He stated that, in light of the said provisions, no notice of the principles of natural justice is required to be followed, as the subordinate legislation, the Corporation, has ample power to regulate the method method of recruitment, pay and allowances, discipline, superannuation benefits, and other conditions of service of the officers.
4.12 Learned counsel further stated that sub-section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, also contemplates that the regulations ations made by the Corporation shall be published in the Gazette of India and thereupon shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
4.13 Mr. Prateek Dhanda, learned counsel, further submitted that all the matters are interlinked, more particularly in light of the response Page 26 of 50 filed on behalf of the respondents in O.A. 206/2025, which reads as under:-
"To fill up the aforesaid vacancies, a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is being conducted. ESI Corporation is just conducting ng examination and declaration of the result in respect of Delhi Region, would be made after the outcome of O.A. No. 3749/2018 which is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. On the basis of judgement of the Tribunal, the decision will be taken whether to issue ssue combined result for combined vacancies of Delhi region or region wise result for region wise vacancies. Moreover, the applicants herein may also participate in the said examination as per eligibility criteria. It is, also relevant, to mention here tha that ESIC in the referred circular dated 02.01.2025, 03.01.2025, 08.01.2025, has never stated that it will declare result on the basis of region region-wise separately or it will declare result on the basis of combined vacancy of all three regions i.e. ESIC Hqrs., R RO Delhi and Directorate (Medical) Delhi since the matter of combined seniority is already sub-judice judice before this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 3749/2018. The Hon'ble Tribunal has already stayed the decision of the Corporation of combined cadre of Delhi Regi Region. The Corporation just wants to save the timing by conducting LDCE so that on the basis of judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal, result may be declared."
4.14 Adding to his arguments, learned counsel submitted that in terms of Entry 89, 126, 147 and 161 of the 2nd Schedule of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023, Respondent no.3 was the appointing authority of the ministerial staff of Delhi in all for three offices (erstwhile regions).
4.15. Mr. Prateek Dhanda, learned counsel also drew our attention to Entry No. 89, 126, 147 and 161 of the Second Schedule of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023. The said entries read as under:
Sl. Name of Level Appointing Disciplinary Penalties Appellate No. Post Authority Authority which the Authority Disciplinary Authority Page 27 of 50 may impose (with reference to Item numbers in regulation
11).
89 Assistant/ 6 Director, Regional (i) to (v) Insurance Head Director, Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) Clerk Delhi or for Director employees (Medical)* or posted under Medical ESIC Superintendent Headquarters, or Regional Dean or Office Delhi equivalent and designation in Directorate case (Medical) of Medical oor Delhi and Dental Colleges or Noida / Principal, Regional Nursing Director for Colleges or other Director In In-
Regions. charge, Joint Director In- charge in case of Sub-Regional Regional Offices. All Insurance Director, Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) for employees posted under ESIC Headquarters, Regional Office Page 28 of 50 Delhi and Directorate (Medical) Delhi and Noida/ Regional Director for other Regions 126 Upper 4 Director, Regional (i) to (v) Insurance Division Director, Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) Clerk/ Delhi or Upper for Director employees Division (Medical)* or Clerk posted under Medical Cashier ESIC Superinte Superintendent Headquarters, or Regional Dean or Office Delhi equivalent and designation in Directorate case (Medical) of Medical or Delhi and Dental Colleges or Noida / Principal, Regional Nursing Director for Colleges or other Director In In- Regions. charge, Joint Director In- charge in case of Sub-Regional Regional Offices. All Insurance Director, Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) for employees posted under ESIC Page 29 of 50 Headquarters, Regional Office Delhi and Directorate (Medical) Delhi and Noida/ Regional Director for other Regions 147 Lower 2 Director, Regional (i) to (v) Insurance Division Director, Commissioner Clerk Headquarters (Zonal) Delhi or for Director employees (Medical)* or posted under Medical ESIC Superintendent Headquarters, or Regional Dean or Office Delhi equivalent and designation in Directorate case (Medical) of Medical or Delhi and Dental Colleges or Noida / Principal, Regional Nursing Director for Colleges or other Director In In- Regions. charge, Joint Director In- charge in case of Sub-Regional Regional Offices. All Insurance Director, Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) for Page 30 of 50 employees posted under ESIC Headquarters, Regional Office Delhi and Directorate (Medical) Delhi and Noida/ Regional Director for other Regions 161 Multi 1 Director, Regional (i) to (v) Insurance Tasking Director, Commissioner Staff Headquarters (Zonal) Delhi or for Director employees (Medical)* or posted under Medical ESIC Superintendent Headquarters, or Regional Dean or Office Delhi equivalent and designation in Directorate case (Medical) of Medical or Delhi and Dental Colleges or Noida / Principal, Regional Nursing Director for Colleges or other Director In In- Regions. charge, Joint Director In- charge in case of Sub-Region Regional Offices. Page 31 of 50 Director, All Insurance Commissioner Headquarters (Zonal) for employees posted under ESIC Headquarters, Regional Office Delhi and Directorate (Medical) Delhi and Noida/ Regional Director for other Regions
4.16. In the written submission filed by Mr. Prateek Dhanda, learned counsel, on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the present Original Application seeks directions to the respondents to conduct a single Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the ministerial staff in Delhi, encompassing Headquarters, Regional Office, and Directorate (Medical). The applicants seek this action based on the relevant relevant provisions under the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023. It is further submitted that the controversy arises from the Office Memorandum dated 12.07.2018, which sought to merge the seniority of ministerial staff across the three offices in Delhi. The applicants contend that this memora memorandum was stayed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 3749/2018 3749/2018, and subsequent to the stay, a Gazette notification dated 17.11.2018 Page 32 of 50 was issued to amend the ESIC Regulations. Furthermore, the respondents later superseded these amendments with the 2023 Service Regulations. The applicants argue that in the absence of any challenge to the 2018 Amendment or the 2023 Regulations, the OA No. 3749/2018 has become infructuous and no longer holds any relevance.
The applicants also contend that the merger of the three offices' seniority lists is not arbitrary or illegal, as the relationship between the State and its employees is one of status, not contract contract, and the State has the discretion to alter conditions of service as per its needs and administrative exigencies. Citing afore-quoted quoted judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Court, the applicants submit that the merger of the cadres is a policy decision and cannot be considered arbitrary or unreasonable.
Additionally, it is argued that subordinate or delegated legislation, such as the 2018 Amendment and 2023 Regulations, does not require the adherence to principles of natural justice. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants in O.A. No. 3749/2018 have no inherent right to be governed by the same conditions of service forever, as the State is entitled to alter or amend service conditions, including avenues of promotion, based on administrative needs. The present applicants invoke the decision in PU Joshi v. Accountant General General, Ahmedabad & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 632, 632 to emphasize the government's discretion in shaping service conditions and reconstituting departments or cadres.
O.A. No.1565/2025 Page 33 of 505. In the present O.A., the applicant applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
reliefs "i)
i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the Office Order vide F. No. A-19012/8/2020 19012/8/2020-Estt. II (B) dtd. 15.12.2020 under Annexure -A/1 A/1 based on the office Order No. F. No. A-
28013/1/2020-Estt.
Estt. II (B) Section dated 02.11.2020 under Annexure-A/2 A/2 in reverting Applicant from the Post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to the Post of STA without considering his show cause reply dtd.13.11.2020 under Annexure Annexure-A/3 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, non-application application of mind, violative of principles of natural justice and being untenable in law and accordingly quash the same.
ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal be further pleased to hold & declared that the past service experience of the applicant bbeing more than ten years with Diploma Qualification is equivalent Degree in Engineering and is a Valid Degree as per Rules for the purpose of employment in Central Govt. Services in terms of the guidelines and authorities under Annexure Annexure-A/14, A/15 & A/16 and the applicant is entitled to continue to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with consideration for further promotion alongwith all consequential service benefits.
iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to pass such other Order/Orders, Direction/Directions on/Directions as, would be deem fit and proper in favour of the Applicant in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case."
5.1 Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the applicant in the present O.A. and also appears for private resp respondents in O.A. No.206/2025. He states that he adopts the arguments of Mr. Prateek Dhanda, learned counsel.
couns
6. Mr. Padma Kr. S, learned counsel, appears on behalf of private respondents in O.A. No.1565/2025.
6.1 He stated that the learned counsels have not mentioned the word 'merger' in their Original Application (O.A.) as well as in the arguments. Even the Gazette notification is silent about the term 'merger.' Page 34 of 50 6.2 He further stated that nothing on record, either by implication or by explicit language, indicates indicates that, as per the amendment notified on 17.11.2018, a unified cadre is to be established.
6.3 He relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Layakmiya Bademiya Shaikh and Ors. 2007(5) MHLJ64 dated 19.04.2007. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant portion of 19.04.2007.
the same is reproduced herein below:
"13. The issue of fixation of merger of cadres and inter se seniority in a merged cadre is no longer res integra as the prin principles fixed while fixing seniority in merged cadre consequent on the State ReRe- organisation Act have now been adopted as principles for fixation of inter se seniority and have received judicial recognition. We may first refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni. The principles as laid down may be reproduced hereinbelow:
10. The following principles had been formulated for being observed as far as may be, in the integration of Government servantss adopted to the services of the new States:
In the matter of equation of posts:
(i) Where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis; but where, however, there were no such similar cadres the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts--
(a) nature and duties of a post;
(b) powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(c) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post, and
(d) the salary of the post.
It is well-settled settled that these principles have a statutory force. In S.P. Shivprasad Pipal the issue was of merging of three different cadres. In the challenge to the merger the Supreme Court held that the Government had rightly followed the principles enunciated in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (supra). One of the factors considered wewere pay scales drawn by the persons in their old cadre.
The State, therefore, had to consider the tests whilst directing the merger of the two cadres.
Page 35 of 5014. From the impugned notification we find that the State Government appears not to have applied the princ principles and proceeded on the basis that the two cadres were similar. The very fact that the cadres were merged to give women the same responsibilities and duties was not taken into consideration as also the contention as urged by the respondent No. 1 was thathat whereas the training period for male Police Inspector was 18 months that for women police inspector was six months. Further the course of training of male Police Inspectors was different from the course of training for female Sub Inspectors. The third cocontention was that the nature of the work and duties were different. These would be relevant aspects to be considered whilst arriving at a conclusion. In our opinion the State Government ought to have considered these aspects and laid down criteria for merg merger of the two cadres and then fixing the inter se seniority in the merged cadres. Unless the State on examining the matter, had arrived at a conclusion that all things were equal. There has been no material placed before us to indicate that before deciding on the merger the State Government applied its mind to the criteria and material From the impugned order also we do not find that any criteria was considered whilst merging the two cadres and fixing the inter se seniority of the male and female Sub Inspec Inspectors as also Inspectors in the merged cadre.
15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of 4th July, 2005 which has been set aside need not be interfered with. The State Government, however, is directed within six months from today to fixx the principles firstly for the merger of the two cadres and then the inter se seniority for fixing the inter se seniority in the new merged cadre, from the batch of 1977 1977-79 onwards. We make it clear that the appointment/promotion of Officers who were recruited ruited prior to 1977 is not to be interfered with.
Rule to that extent partly made absolute. No order as to costs."
6.4 The sum and substance of the arguments of Mr. Padma Kumar, learned counsel is that the mode and manner of merger are questionable in the factual matrix of the case cases. He said that merger and method of fixation of seniority are to be notified.
6.5 He drew attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.7545/2011 in the case of Saurabh Dubey & Ors.
vs. Union of India & Ors vide order dated 25.05.2015. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
Page 36 of 50"57. The Court is neither commenting upon nor adjudicating upon the wisdom of the Government's deci decision to merge the cadres! Such action of the Government would fall in the realm of policymaking. While it is not open for the court to examine whether the equationof posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong'; there is no such bar in examining whether merger of cadres, which is a wholly different result, has been reached after following the due procedure. However, every policy making process must be based upon relevant materials and with due deliberation with the requisite agencies/authorities concerned. Any default in this process would result in ill ill-informed and half-baked policies which in turn would defeat the very objective of the policy. Hence, in public interest, such flaws in decision making need to be reviewed. Judicial Review of policy decisions would be permissible to this extent. Accordingly, the Court is only examining whether due process was followed in such decision making."
6.6 He also relied upon the decision rendered by the co co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in T.A. No.235/2009 in the case of Shri Kamal Lachan Gupta vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. dated 02.03.2010. For the sake of better appreciation, the relevant paras of thee judgment are reproduced herein below:
below:-
"3. A brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant who joined as Assistant on 12.7.1973 was promoted as Section Officer on 7.3.1977 under EPI pattern the post was re re-designated as Assistant Manager. On 1.9.19788 applicant was reverted to the post of Assistant but a decision was taken by the respondents on 7.11.1979, whereby applicant was regularized from retrospective effect in the pay scale of Rs.650 Rs.650-1200, which was revised to Rs.2000-3500.
3500. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been served, yet not filed their reply. However, respondents 4, 6 and 8 though served but no representation is made on their behalf and also reply is not filed. Respondent No. 5 had retired and respondent No.7 had expired. Accordingly, those who ar are not likely to be affected have been deleted from the array of parties. The grievance of applicant is that whereas others have been given antedated promotion by merging various cadres. However, neither the merger was notified nor recruitment rules to operate ate the seniority have been issued, rather appointment in the grade of Rs.650 Rs.650-1200 was treated as the initial point of seniority. It is stated by applicant in person that those who have been given antedated promotion as Assistant Manager were appointed in the higher grade but their seniority has to be reckoned from the date they have been brought as Assistant Manager, which is anterior in time in case of applicant, yet they have been treated as senior to applicant, as a result of which applicant, who should have been placed at serial No.8 of the seniority list, was placed at serial No.17. Accordingly, his right to be considered for further promotion has been prejudiced.
************************* Page 37 of 50
6. In our considered view, on considering the rival contentions of the parties, once the applicant was placed in the pay scale of Rs.650-960 960 and was regularized after the reversion orders were cancelled, his seniority should have been reckoned from 1.4.1977 instead of 1979. We also note that the private respondents wh who have been promoted in the higher grade earlier to the applicant, yet when the merger has not been given statutory effect and also seniority principles were not notified, the initial grade for the purpose of further promotion as Deputy Manager should be seniority eniority in the grade of Assistant Manager in which grade applicant was in position from 1977. The others who were not in the pay scale, antedating their promotion and relegating seniority of applicant, without a show cause notice, is violative of his civi civil right, which has not been operated in the matter of seniority by observing principles of natural justice and the rules to the effect. As a result of this, applicant, who has since been promoted as Deputy Manager, should have been considered retrospective retrospectively for the post of Senior Manager, as others have been promoted in 1996 much before the date of retirement of applicant."
6.7. In the written submission filed by Mr. Padma Kr. S., learned counsel for the private respondents in OA No. 1565/2020, it is submitted tted that the present OA has been filed by certain employees of ESIC Directorate (Medical) Delhi seeking promotions based on an allegedly unified or merged cadre, with the Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2018 being cited as the basis. However, the submiss submission asserts that ESIC operates three independent offices in Delhi Delhi--Headquarters, Directorate (Medical), and Regional Office Office--each with separate seniority lists and promotion posts. The Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2018, which is central to the applicant' applicant's claim, only addresses the change of the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority, without any mention of the unification or merger of these three offices. It is further submitted that the genesis of the alleged merger or unification is not supported by any formal policy decision. The demand for such unification was primarily raised by employees of the Directorate (Medical), but no formal process was followed to implement the Page 38 of 50 merger in accordance with established legal norms. The sequence of actions taken by ESIC is also highlighted, specificall specifically Agenda Item No. 9 of the 174th ESIC meeting held on 29.05.2018, where it was stated that the roles and functions of the three units are distinct. The proposal to combine the cadre and seniority was accepted, but the memorandum dated 12.07.2018 does not notify any such merger, nor does the Gazette Notification of 17.11.2018 address the merger of cadres or provide a methodology for determining seniority.
6.8. It is further argued on behalf of the the private respondents that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies, as there has been a consistent past practice of maintaining separate seniority lists, and any deviation from this practice should have been notified to the employees. However, in this this case, neither the merger nor the methodology for determining seniority was formally notified. They cite legal precedents to support their position, including the judgments in State of Maharashtra v. Layakmya Bademiya Shaikh Shaikh, Saurabh Dubey v. Union of India, I and Shri Kamal Lachan Gupta v. Delhi Administration, asserting that ESIC failed to examine the parameters Administration, required for merging the different cadres.
7. Opposing the grant of reliefs, relief , learned counsel for the respondents in OA No.3749/2018 submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law and in the best interest of the organization and its employees.
Page 39 of 507.1 The restructuring and cadre rationalization within Delhi has been carried out to ensure uniformity, transparency, and equal opportunity for promotion among all employees within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Learned counsel submitted that the contention of the applicants regarding promotional disadvantage is hypothetical and speculative, as promotions are subject to av availability of vacancies and not automatically accrued.
7.2. The learned learned counsel further submitted that the resolution dated 23.07.2018, purportedly authorizing legal recourse by the ESIC Headquarters Employees Union on behalf of all Delhi Delhi-based employees, lacks legal sanctity and cannot be the basis for maintaining the present proceedings.
7.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the ESIC Ministerial staff constitutes constitute a regional (state) cadre up to the level of Assistant, and their transfer liability is limited to field offices within the state.
However, in Delhi, an anomalous situation prevailed where three separate units -- Headquarters Office, Regional Office, and Directorate (Medical) Delhi -- maintained separate cadres and seniority lists, despite being being located in the same territorial jurisdiction.
This fragmented system was not only inefficient but also impeded equal promotional opportunity. In order to correct this anomaly and for better administrative efficiency, it was decided by the competent authority ority to merge the cadres of all three Delhi Delhi-based offices and Page 40 of 50 maintain a common seniority list and unified roster for the ministerial posts (MTS, LDC, UDC, and Assistant).
7.4 Thee learned counsel further stated that the Director General of ESIC, being declared declared the "Head of Department" under the ESI Act and the Rules of Business, is vested with administrative and financial powers to delegate functions. In view of the same, the Director, Headquarters Office, New Delhi has been declared as the appointing and disciplinary authority for the common cadre covering all three Delhi offices. The functional dissimilarities between these offices, as pointed out by the applicants, only reinforce the rationale behind the cadre merger -- to ensure cross-functional functional exposure and development of staff for higher responsibilities. Moreover, promotion to the post of Social Security Officer (SSO) and above carries all all-India transfer liability, and therefore, it is in the organizational and employee interest that personnel at the Headquarters Headquarters possess adequate field experience and vice versa.
8. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No.3749/2018, in rejoinder arguments, stated that the act of the respondents in passing passing a Gazatte Notifications despite there being a stay order itself overreaches judicial wisdom, tantamount to a contemptuous act on the part of the official respondents. He drew a distinction between the case law law cited on behalf of applicants in OA No.1565/2020 and OA No. 206/2025 submitting that merger ought to have been done following due process of law . The action on the part Page 41 of 50 of the official respondents was one-sided one sided favor of the Union and ignored the claims of the other union(s). Such a decision ought not to be given effect without w giving ann opportunity of being heard. He would justify the interim order granted in favor of the applicants in OA No. 3749/2018 submitting that the OA deserves to be allowed.
9. Heard learned counsel counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings ngs available on record. We have examined the or original records of the case as well.
10. ANALYSIS :
10.1. In the above detailed submissions made by the respective parties, while reviewing the records of the case, we observe that the present case, in the strict sense, does not fall within the ambit of either the definition of "merger" or "combined cadre" (as used in the impugned office order). It is clear that there were three distinct zones functioning independently, each having its own administrative cha charge and catering to their respective service conditions, including transfers, seniority, and promotions within their zones. Therefore, all three zones were distinct and separate, even though they were working within the NCR region up to the level of Assist Assistant. However, for the rest of India, transfers, inter-se inter se seniority, and promotions were combined.
10.2 Article 309 of the Constitution of India stipulates the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State, and it reads as follows:
fo Page 42 of 50 "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate " "the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any St State:
Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of service services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate L Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act."
10.3. In a harmonious reading of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, read with the general provisions of the ESIC Act, 1959, nothing has been brought on record that the "Service Conditions" have been altered or changed in any manner, either by issuing a promotion or transferring any employee to a different zone other than where they were appointed, which would affect the individual(s).
10.4. The impugned order(s) as well as the subsequent Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2018 suggests that administratively all three zones were brought under one Head of Office in command under the Regional Director (HQ). Hence, it has been argued by neces necessary implication that all three zones have been combined or merged into one, thereby altering the "conditions of service" or " service conditions" to their detriment, more particularly, Delhi Region, by not following the principles of natural justice.
10.5 "Service conditions" typically refer to the terms and conditions under which an employer employe and an employee often outline the rights, responsibilities, duties, and entitlements of both parties involved, Page 43 of 50 ensuring clarity and reducing potential disputes. For Employees:
Service conditions may encompass a wide range of aspects related to employment, including:
Duration of Employment:
Employment: Temporary, permanent, contract contract-based, etc. Working Hours:
Hours: Standard working hours, overtime provisions, breaks, etc. Compensation Salary,, bonuses, and other allowances.
Compensation:
Leave Entitlements:
Entitlements: Annual leave, sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, etc. Duties and Responsibilities:
Responsibilities: Outline of the role and expected task tasks.
Termination: Grounds for termination, notice periods, severance Termination:
packages.
Benefits: Health insurance, retirement benefits, training Benefits:
opportunities, etc.
Workplace Environment:
Environment: Safety protocols, amenities provided, workplace behavior, etc. Non-compete compete and Confidentiality Clauses Clauses: Restrictions on working with competitors or sharing company secrets.
Dispute Resolution:
Resolution: Mechanisms to resolve any disputes that arise during the course of employment.
10.6 In the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal (1976), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the validity of a combined seniority scheme introduced by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for its employees. The scheme aimed to integrate the clerical staff of General Departments with that of Specialized Depa Departments and also to combine the non-clerical clerical staff with the clerical staff across all RBI departments.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had initially set aside the scheme, ruling it violated the equality provisions under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
Consti However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court overturned Page 44 of 50 the High Court's decision, ruling that the creation of a combined seniority list did not violate Articles 14 or 16. It clarified that Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, and Article 16, w which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment, do not prohibit the creation of different cadres or groups within government services. Whether seniority should be combined across different cadres was considered a matter of policy and not subj subject to constitutional challenge based on equality. Furthermore, the Court upheld the retrospective implementation of the combined seniority scheme, which had effect from May 22, 1974, despite varying opinions about when the scheme should have been enforced.
enforced. The decision aimed to strike a balance between the demands of different officer groups within the RBI. The Court acknowledged that the retrospective implementation was necessary to correct the imbalances and anomalies created by the previously compartmentalized compartmentalized seniority system. Officers who had benefited from accelerated promotions during the interim period were not to have those promotions recognized, in order to maintain fairness across the service. In essence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that administrative decisions related to the restructuring of seniority and cadre integration are within the discretion of the organization, and such decisions do not automatically infringe upon constitutional rights unless they are proven to be arbitrary or discriminatory.
discriminatory.
Page 45 of 5010.7 In Civil Appeal No.786 Of 2013 titled Prafful Shukla And Others Versus Government Of Madhya Pradesh And Others decided on December 12, 2023 , the Apex Court held :
"4.
4. The Single Bench of the High Court, while referring to number of judgments of this Court, had opined that the merger of cadres is a policy decision which cannot generally be interfered with. The argument raised by the writ petitioners before the High CoCourt was that there could a better policy, could not be a ground to quash the same. The level of posts being merged was examined and it was opined that these were at the same level. The Division Bench of the High Court had also recorded a categoric finding to that effect. It was opined that the post of Assistant Director in Adult Education Department carried the same responsibilities as that of Assistant Director in the Education Department. Though there used to be slight difference of the pay scales, howeve however that was also brought at par w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Even the Single Bench had also noticed that the State Government had considered the entire gamut of facts including educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities, and pay scales before directing m merger of the two cadres.
5. It was further pointed out at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the State that there were 17 writ petitioners before the High Court challenging the merger. Their placement in the seniority of Assistant Directors in the Education Department as on 01.01.2000 was at Sr. Nos. 48, 215, 250, 271, 536, 537, 543, 551, 559, 577, 579, 580, 588, 589, 594 and 595. The said fact was not disputed at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the appellants. It shows that the first per person in the seniority to challenge the merger was at Sr. No. 48. Thereafter, the next person was after a gap of 167 persons and then came Sr. Nos. 250, 271 and 536 onwards. Meaning thereby, other officers in the cadre who may be likely to be affected immedi immediately with the merger, were not aggrieved with the action of the State. Twenty Twenty-four years have gone by. Number of promotions have taken place in between and many of the officers have retired after attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise are not in service for other reasons."
10.8. The introduction of the resolution followed by the Gazette Notification dated 17.11.2018, which integrates the staff up to the level of Assistant within the three divisions of the NCR region under one Regional Director, instead of three separate Heads of O Offices, is observed to be a policy decision. As such, it is not violative of the equality clauses under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
These Articles do not prohibit the creation of different cadres in Page 46 of 50 government service, and whether or not there should be a combined seniority in different cadres or groups is a matter of policy. Hence, the applicability of the equality clause does not extend to such a policy decision. Further, even if an individual feels aggrieved regarding their placement in in the seniority list or promotion promotion--based on the argument that the combined seniority list has resulted in discriminatory treatment--
-- such uch a grievance is personal in nature. The pleadings in the Original Application (OA) suggest that the combined seniority li list may have led to discriminatory outcomes, but these claims appear to be based on arbitrary decisions by the official respondents. It is also noted that individuals who would have been most directly impacted by the merger, particularly in terms of promoti promotions, have not raised any issues. Additionally, some officers who might have been affected have already retired, reached the age of superannuation, or are no longer in service for other reasons within the intra intra-zone. Lastly, the amended regulations dated 17.11.2018, 17.11.2018, which were governed by the 1959 Rules, have now been superseded by new Regulations in 2023, further updating the rules governing the staff conditions.
10.9. In the case at hand, the policy decision regarding the integration of the three divisions must ensure that it provides a reasonable solution for protecting the rights of the affected employees in each of the divisions. This is particularly important in relation to their changes in service conditions, such as transfers and promotional avenues. To address these issues, employees should be given the option to express Page 47 of 50 their willingness to remain in their initial zones or to opt for inclusion in the integrated division. This approach would help safeguard the interests of individuals whose seniority, service conditions, or career progression may be impacted by the merger.
10.10. In order to put a quietus to the issue, the cut-off or appointed date for determining the options regarding integration should be the date of the notification of the 2023 Regu Regulations. The rationale behind this is threefold: first, the Tribunal has granted a stay on the operation of the Office Memorandum, which continues to be in effect; second, the previous Regulations have been superseded by the new 2023 Regulations; and third, third, the 2023 Regulations have not been challenged to date. Therefore, it is only fair to regard the date of notification of the 2023 Regulations as the benchmark for finalizing the options available to employees regarding the integration of the three divisio divisions.
11. CONCLUSION :
In view view of above detailed discussions, we dispose of all the three Original Applications Applications with the following directions ::-
11.1. The respondents ought to formulate a policy of inter se seniority in the integrated scheme, issuing a fresh combined list, keeping in mind the following: -
(i) For the purposes of determining inter se seniority, the crucial date for determining their seniority shall be the initial date of appointment in their respective divisions/Zones.Page 48 of 50
(ii) Inter-se disputes within in sets of employee(s) working in three different zones on the cutoff/ appointed date in the respective feeder cadre, the rule of seniority ought to be determined in order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment based on the length of continu continuous officiation in the post.
(iii) When two or more employees of a particular grade in an office are simultaneously listed on the same date in an integrated list, list their inter-se seniority in the particular grade in the integrated list would be the same shall be as per the Rule position position.
(iv) The employees who have participated in LDCE in the respective three zone(s)/division(s) between the date of the interim order until the appointed date of Regulation 2023 shall be deemed to be allotted to that integrated cadre, as it has been addressed that Regulation, 1959 has been superseded by Regulation 2023.
(v) A draft combined seniority list shall be published afresh, and the individual(s) who who are aggrieved by their inter inter-se seniority in the proposed draft combined list have tthe liberty to take recourse to remedies available under the law by making a representation, if such a situation arises at a later stage.
(vi) Considering the options/representations representations a final seniority list shall be published.Page 49 of 50
11.2 Till such time, time we make it clear ear that there shall be no inter inter-se transfer among any employees (up (up to the level of Assistant) who were inducted into different divisions/zones prior to the appointed date to their detriment, or to say that the employees shall continue to serve, on or after er the appointed day, in their erstwhile cadre except by giving an option to the employees of all three divisions/zones.
11.3. The interim order(s) on the respective date(s) stand vacated to the extent indicated hereinabove. All pending applications, if aany, are also disposed dispo of. No costs.
(Dr.
Dr. Anand S Khati)
Khati (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/as/
Page 50 of 50