The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ESIC LDC Recruitment Regulations provided for only one combined cadre of LDCs, and the practice of having regional cadre of LDCs with different appointing authorities was not in accordance with the Statutory Regulations. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Statutory Rules and Regulations in matters of seniority and promotion.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The Director General, Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘ESIC’) has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1427/2012 preferred by respondent 1- Saurabh Kumar. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application and directed the petitioner to prepare an All India Seniority list of the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) cadre of the ESIC and on the basis of the said seniority list, to give consequential benefits of further promotions to respondent 1 within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

2. ESIC is a Statutory Body established under the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 and Director General is its Chief Executive Officer. Its Headquarter is in Delhi and it has offices in various other cities of the country. The conditions of service of employees of the ESIC are governed by ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 which are statutory in nature, as they have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Some of the relevant provisions contained in these Regulations are the following:

“2(d) “Director General” means the Director General of the Corporation.

2(g) “Post” means a post under the Corporation and a post shall be deemed to be post in Class I, Class II, Class III or Class IV, according as such post is specified in/Class I, Class II, Class II or Class IV in the First Schedule.

4. Appointing Authority – All appointments to posts shall be made by the Director General:

Provided that the Standing Committee or the Director General may, by general or special order, delegate to any other authority or office to the Corporation, powers to make appointments to any post or class of posts other than posts in Class I and Class II.”

3. ESIC has also framed the ESIC (Recruitment) Regulations, 1965 and the ESIC (Lower Division Clerk/Adrema Operator/Telephone Operator/Computer) Recruitment Regulations, 2006. (“ESIC LDC Recruitment Regulations” for short)

4. Respondent No. 1 – an employee of ESIC, is working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in one of the regional offices of the ESIC, i.e. office of Director (Medical) Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is also an employee of the ESIC who is serving as an Assistant in the Northern Region of ESIC at Rohini, Delhi. Respondent No.1 & 2 both participated in the same All-India Competitive Examination of LDCs conducted by the petitioner ESIC in the year 2000. In the said competitive examination, Respondent No.1 was ranked No. 342, and Respondent No. 2 was ranked No. 690. Thus, respondent No.1 was found more meritorious than respondent No.2. As aforesaid, respondent No.1 joined the office of Director (Medical), Delhi, whereas respondent No.2 joined Northern Region of ESIC at Rohini, New Delhi. On the basis of their respective service and performance, they earned promotion as UDC in their respective Regions after putting in the requisite length of service; upon occurrence of vacancies, and; conduct of promotion processes in UDC.

5. Respondent No.1 preferred the aforesaid Original Application, impleading ESIC as respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 herein – Shashi Bhushan Kumar as respondent No.2 with the grievance that the cadre of LDCs in the ESIC was a common cadre and a common seniority list ought to be maintained in respect of all the Regions. He was aggrieved by the fact that Respondent No. 2 in the Original Application stole a march over him due to disregard of the inter-se merit position in the recruitment process. The O.A. was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.11.2013. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed a Review Application No. 24/2014. The Review Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 0