Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Priya J D vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 4 August, 2023
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
O.A No.180/00358/2022
Friday, this the 4th day of August, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
Ms.Priya JD, W/o Jinesh R.S
Aged 31 years, Raj Vihar, Marakkamuttom
Vazhuthoor, Neyyattinkara
P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
Now working as Emp ID 175434
MTS, Branch Office ESIC, Irinjalakkuda
Thrissur-680121 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms.Jyothilakshmy K.K)
Versus
1. The Regional Director
ESIC, Administration
Regional Office, Thrissur - 680 001
2. Deputy Director
ESIC, Administration, Regional Office
Thrissur - 680 001
3. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Panchdweep Bhavan, North
Swaraj Round, Thrissur - 680 022 - Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr.T.V.Ajayakumar)
The O.A having been heard on 4th August, 2023, this Tribunal on the
same day passed the following :
2
O R D E R (ORAL)
Applicant is a Multi Tasking Staff appointed in 2018. Initially she was posted under the first respondent in Thrissur. On completion of 3 years, she was transferred to ESIC office at Irinjalakkuda. Meanwhile, she was married in 2019 and gave birth to a girl child in 2020. She had availed Maternity Leave from 23.12.2020 to 18.6.2021. In continuation of the Maternity Leave, she availed Child Care Leave for 98 days from 19.6.2021 to 24.9.2021. The applicant submits that she suffered post pregnancy difficulties and had persistent vision problem and other ENT related problems. Anyhow, her application for the 2nd spell of CCL was rejected by the respondents and then she applied for Commuted Leave for 33 days from 25.9.2021 to 27.10.2021. That was supported by a Medical Certificate which was not acceptable so that, that application was not considered. Meanwhile, she also moved Annexure A1 application for diversion to Thiruvananthapuram or Neyyattinkara. That was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, she has moved this Tribunal for quashing Annexure A-7 and for directing the respondents to sanction and convert the commuted leave for the period from 25.9.2021 to 27.10.2021 to Child Care Leave with salary and to consider and pass orders on Annexure A1 and grant her transfer to Thiruvananthapuram on a temporary basis.
3
2. The respondents have disputed the claims and filed reply statement rebutting the claims of the applicant. According to them, in continuation of the Maternity Leave, she was granted Child Care Leave for the first spell. But the request for 2nd spell of CCL was rejected and then she moved application for Commuted Leave. The Medical Certificate, attached to the application for Commuted Leave, dated 20.9.2021 certified that 'period of absence from duty of 35 days with effect from 25.9.2021 is absolutely necessary for the restoration of her health.' Such a Medical Certificate could not be accepted and thus her application for Commuted Leave was regularised as one non- medical ground. Referring to Annexure R1(g), the respondents pointed out that they have already called for clarification from the Doctor who issued the Annexure R1(f) Medical Certificate.
3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
4. Annexure A-1 is an application for diversion from Thrissur to Thiruvananthapuram or Neyyattinkara which was submitted by the applicant when she was serving at Thrissur. It is admitted that on completion of 3 years tenure in Thrissur, she was transferred to Irinjalakkuda and normally she can seek a further transfer only after completion of the present tenure, as per the existing transfer guidelines.
4
5. Annexure A-7 was issued when she had moved an application for Commuted Leave with an improper Medical Certificate. A second spell of CCL could not have been granted on the expiry of the first spell on 24.9.2021. After realising this aspect, she moved Annexure R1(e) application for Commuted Leave, in continuation, on the expiry of the CCL already sanctioned. As noticed earlier, that application was appended with Medical Certificate dated 20.9.2021 issued by one Dr.Jisha R.S, Assistant Surgeon, CHC Pulluvila where it was certified that she considered that a 'period of absence from duty of 35 days with effect from 25.9.2021 is absolutely necessary for the restoration of her health'. As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel and maintained by the respondents, such a Medical Certificate cannot stands scrutiny. It is strange that a Medical Officer in Government service had testified on 20.9.2021 that a period of absence from 25.9.2021 is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the respondents are justified in eschewing the Medical Certificate. Annexure A-8 shows that her leave application was regularised as one without pay on non-medical ground. Thereafter, the applicant has re-joined duty on 28.10.2021.
6. It needs to be stated that the applicant is under the wrong impression that leave is a right. She also seems to think that the administrative machinery should always work in her favour whenever inconveniences are caused to her family life. It is the settled proposition that administrative 5 exigencies and public interest should prevail over personal inconveniences.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she had moved an application on 14.2.2023 seeking transfer to Thiruvananthapuram region. The learned counsel also pointed out her difficulties; she has to take care of a toddler child, her mother is aged about 78 years, her husband is working in Palakkad and now she is pregnant again, and in the circumstances, she is unable to manage herself without the help of her relatives, in Irinjalakkuda. But the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that an application for transfer can be entertained only online, that too when the portal is opened for the purpose; such an application will be entertained only in December. According to him, if she has any grievance in denying legitimate request for transfer, that can be raised before the Transfer Redressal Committee.
8. After going through the materials made available, I do not find reasons to grant any relief to the applicant. There is nothing in Annexure A-7 to draw adverse inference against the respondents, for setting it aside. Moreover, Annexure A-1 was submitted by the applicant when she was working in Thrissur; thereafter she was transferred to Irinjalakkuda. A copy of representation dated 14.2.2023, submitted during the course of argument also is not submitted on time as provided in the transfer guidelines. The 6 learned Standing Counsel has submitted that if an application is submitted in accordance with the standing instructions, that will be considered as per law.
9. The applicant is not entitled to get any relief. It is open to her to raise her grievance regarding a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram before the Transfer Redressal Committee. I have no doubt that if any application for transfer is submitted by the applicant, that will be considered with deserving sympathy.
10. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No cost.
(Dated this the 4th day of August, 2023) Justice K.Haripal Judicial Member sv 7 List of Annexures Annexure A1- True copy of the request, dated 15.8.2021 submitted by the applicant before the 1st respondent for the temporary diversion from Thrissur to Trivandrum Annexure A2- True copy of the application for extension of leave, dated 26.8.2021 submitted by the applicant before the 3rd respondent Annexure A3- True copy of the Reply, dated 26.9.2021 submitted by the applicant before the 1st respondent Annexure A4- True copy of the Communication No.54-A20/13/590/2018- Adm, dated 24.9.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant Annexure A5- True copy of the Memorandum, dated 16.2.2022 issued by the 2 respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent to the applicant nd Annexure A6- True copy of the explanation, dated 27.2.2022 submitted by the applicant to the 1st respondent Annexure A7- True copy of the communication No.54 A-20/13/590/2018- Adm, dated 18.4.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant Annexure A8- True copy of the communication 54 A 20/13/590/2018, 19.4.2022 issued from the office of the 3rd respondent to the applicant Annexure R1(a)- True copy of the OM dated 4.2.2022 issued by the Government of Indi a Annexure R1(b)- True copy of the Circular No.A-22013/2/2012-DPC(e-file) dated 7.2.2022 issued by the ESIC Annexure R1(c)- True copy of the office order dated 4.1.2021 8 Annexure R1(d)- True copy of office order dated 15.6.2021 Annexure R1(e)- True copy of the application for leave dated 19.9.2021 submitted by the petitioner Annexure R1(f)- True copy of the Medical Certificate dated 20.9.2021 issued by Dr.Jisha R.S, Asst. Surgeon, CHC, Polluvila Annexure R1(g)- letter dated 24.9.2021 of the 2 nd respondent to Dr.Jisha R.S, Asst.Surgeon, CHC, Polluvila Annexure R1(h)- True copy of the reply dated 2.10.2021 of Dr.Jisha R.S, Asst. Surgeon, CHC, Polluvila, addressed to the 1st respondent Annexure R1(i)- True copy of the order dated 24.8.2022 issued by the 1 st respondent ....