Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr Shreyasi Ray vs Esic on 26 November, 2019
1 oa/1477/19
ENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A/350/1477/2019 Date of Order: 26.11.2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Dr. Shreyasi Ray, daughter of Dr. Arun Kumar Ray,
aged about 38 years, presently serving as Assistant
Professor of Anesthesiology, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC
Medical College & ESIC Hospital, Joka, presently
residing at 27-4B, Genexx Valley, Joka, Kolkata -
700104 and permanent resident of B-l 11, Survey Park,
Santoshpur, Kolkata - 700075.
--Applicant
Versus
1. The Union of India, service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti
Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director General, Employees' State Insurance
Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Comrade Indrajeet
Gupta (CIG) Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
3. The Medical Commissioner (Medical Administration),
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep
Bhawan, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta (CIG) Marg, New
Delhi - 110002.
4. The Medical Commissioner (Medical Education),
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep
Bhawan, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta (CIG) Marg, New
Delhi - 110002.
5. The Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR & ESIC Medical
College & ESIC Hospital & ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour
Road, P.O- Joka, Kolkata - 700104.
6. The head of the Department of Anesthesiology, ESI-
PGIMSR & ESIC Medical College & ESIC Hospital &
ODC (EZ), Diamond Harbour Road, P.O- Joka, Kolkata
-700104.
7. The Secretary, Board of Governors in Supersession to
Medical Council of India, MCI Building, Pocket - 14,
Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase -1, New Delhi, Pin - 110077.
--Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. D. N. Roy, counsel
Mr. B. Nandy, counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. C. Prasad, counsel
I,.
2 oa/1477/19
mtm
mm • .y. :.y
ORDER (QraJ)
f ". r:.
Per: Dr. Nandita Chatteriee, Administrative Member:
The applicant has approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a) An order do issue directing thereby the concerned Respondent Authority to immediately promote the applicant to the post of Associate Professor from that of Assistant Professor following the DACP Scheme.
b) An order do issue directing thereby the Departmental Promotional Committee to consider the case of the applicant for her promotional benefits in the post of Associate Professor following the DACP Scheme.
c) An order do issue directing the concerned respondent authorities to ,>0>9lr transmit all the records before this Honble Tribunal in the ends of justice.
d) Any other appropriate order/orders direction/directions as this Hon hie Tribunal may deem fit and proper to protect the right of the applicants."
2. Heard both Ld. counsel, perused documents on record. The matter is taken up at the admission stage for disposal.
3. The submissions of the applicant as articulated through her Ld. counsel * _ is, that the applicant had served as RMO cum Clinical Tutor under the State Government of West Bengal between 22.01.2011 to 20.01.2012 and, thereafter, had served as Assistant Professor with the same State Government from 20.01.2012 to 19.04.2016. On 25.05.2016, the applicant joined the service of the ESIC as an Assistant Professor and staked her claim for promotion to the post of Associate Professor as per Recruitment Rules of ESIC. The applicant claims that, as she has in her credit more than seven years of regular service in the feeder post of Assistant Professor, and because she was given pay protection by ESIC considering the past service in the State of West Bengal, such factors should necessarily count towards qualifying regular five years service for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.
u 3 oa/1477/19 w Ir The applicant has preferred a representation dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A) but such representation has not yet been considered favourably by the respondent authorities and, being aggrieved, has approached the Tribunal seeking the aforementioned relief.
4. Ld. counsel for the applicant urges that the applicant will be fairly satisfied if a direction is issued to the concerned respondent authorities to decide on the pending representation of the applicant dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A) in a time bound manner. /f i\ 1 5.
Ld. counsel for the respondents does not object to disposal of such % £ representation in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, and,'with the consent of the parties, we hereby direct the Respondent No. 2, who is the Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, to examine the contents of the representation dated 15.10.2019 annexed at Annexure A-2 to the O.A, if received at his end, within a period of 8 weeks from-the'date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned respondent authority shall decide in accordance with law and should convey his decision in the form of reasoned and speaking order forthwith to the applicant thereafter.
7. With these directions, the O.A is disposed of. No costs. 7 (Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee).
Member (A) Member (J)
ss