SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ker) 870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
Midhun N. Manoharan – Petitioner
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented By Its Director General, Headquarters Office, Panchadeep Bhawan, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WA.No.1662 OF 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.C.Unnikrishnan (Kollam), Mt.Uthara A.S
For the Respondent: Sri. T.V.Ajayakumar, Sri.P.Vijayaykumar, ASGI, Sri.Titus Mani Vettom, SC

Important points:
Whether contribution have been paid, on the age of 21 years, even if it is during the corresponding benefit period, a male child would be ousted from the definition of members of the family of the insured person entitled for benefit. The contribution paid by the employee is not dependent on the number of members in the family and irrespective of the payment of contribution, in the corresponding benefit period, the male child who attained 21 years before the benefit period would be dis-entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses

Headnote:

The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948- Section 2(11)(iii) -ESI Corporation was well within its powers to fix the age limit for a male ward of the insured person

Statement of facts:

Whether the fixation of maximum age limit of 21 years for an applicant in the Ward of Insured Person quota for Medical admission in ESI Medical Colleges is legal and valid at a time when the maximum age limit fixed by Government of India to apply for NEET is 25 years.

Finding of the court:

The contribution paid by the employee is not dependent on the number of members in the family and irrespective of the payment of contribution, in the corresponding benefit period, the male child who attained 21 years before the benefit period would be dis-entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses- ESI Corporation was well within its powers to fix the age limit for a male ward of the insured person and, therefore, the contentions raised in this writ appeal are unsustainable

Result: Writ appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P(C). No.26689 of 2020 dated 2.12.2020, instant writ appeal is filed.

2. The short question raised for consideration in the writ petition was whether the fixation of maximum age limit of 21 years for an applicant in the Ward of Insured Person quota for Medical admission in ESI Medical Colleges is legal and valid at a time when the maximum age limit fixed by Government of India to apply for NEET is 25 years.

3. The petitioner/appellant, in the writ petition, has stated that he is a repeater student for Medical Entrance. As his mother is an employee under ESI Corporation, she is considered as an Insured Person for the purpose of IP quota medical seats. As such, the petitioner applied for IP quota Medical Admission in 2020. But, because of the clause 7.10.2 in the admission notice and condition No.9 in the admission policy that he should not have completed 21 years as on 31/12/2020, petitioner was not issued with WIP certificate, to make him eligible to apply for IP quota. The above condition of maximum age limit is borrowed form Section 2(11)(iii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (ESI Act), wherein 'Family' is defined, which included a child wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person and who is receiving education, till he/she attains the age of 21 years and an unmarried daughter.

4. Petitioner/appellant has further stated that fixation of maximum age limit of 21 years as per Section 2(11) of the ESI Act is for availing the benefits provided under the Act and the Scheme. The ward of insured person to be considered for IP quota Medical Seat is not a benefit included in the Act and, therefore, the maximum age limit should have been fixed in tune with the NEET i.e., 25 years. All other benefits provided under the Act for the family of the Insured Person are automatically entitled if a dependent of the insured person satisfies the conditions mentioned in Section 2(11). On the other hand, to get a Medical Seat under IP quota, he/she must participate in the All India Test (NEET) and score higher marks. Therefore, according to the appellant, other benefits cannot be equated with IP quota medical admission benefits.

5. Petitioner/appellant has further stated that as per Section 2(11) of the Act, an unmarried daughter is considered as a family member and a dependent. Since, that is the criteria at present for applying for IP quota Medical seats, a serious anomalous situation would arise that an unmarried son cannot apply for IP quota Medical seats, if he has completed the age of 21 years. But an unmarried daughter can apply for the same even if she had crossed the age of 21 years. Therefore, writ petition is filed challenging the condition that a male Ward of IP cannot apply for IP quota Medical seat if he crosses 21 years of age as it is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and unconstitutional. There is no nexus between the fixation of maximum age limit of 21 years, to apply for IP quota Medical seat, and the object sought to be achieved by that fixation. Hence, there is a clear non application of mind in fixing such a condition.

6. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:

“i. Declare that the fixation of maximum age limit of 21 years for applying for Ward of Insured Persons quota medical seats in ESI medical/dental Colleges is ultravires of the Constitution of India, illegal, arbitrary and unjust at a time when the Government of India fixed 25 years for NEET.

(ii). Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing clause 7.10.2 in Ext.P1 & clause 9 of Annexure I of Exhibit-P1 fixing the maximum age of 21 years as on 31.12.2020 for applying for Ward of Insured Persons quota medical seats in ESI medical/ dental Colleges.

(iii). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to apply for Ward of Insured Persons quota medical/dental

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top