By Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):

M.A. No. 2862/2023

Vide this M.A., the applicants seek to invoke the

provisions of Rule 4 (5) of Central Administrative Tribunal

(Procedure) Rules, 1987 to allow them to pursue the

associated OA together. The challenge in the OA is to a

communication dated 24.01.2018 vide which certain

reorganisation/delegation

of

powers/reassignment

of

duties,

etc.

has

been

assigned.

Since

the

said

communication affects all the related employees of the

organisations the applicants are entitled to pursue the OA

jointly and hence, this M.A. is allowed.

O.A. No. 2462/2023

The relief as prayed for by the applicants vide para 8

of the OA reads as under:-

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased

to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt.

24.1.2018 (Annex.A/1) only to the extent by which

Regional Director has been declared as reporting

authority/officer for Senior Medical Officer, declaring to

the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against

the rules and Govt. of India instructions on the subject.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit

and proper may also be granted to the applicants along

with the costs of litigation.”

3

2.

Mr. Amit Chawla, learned counsel, who puts an

appearance on behalf of the respondents submits that the

copy of the OA is yet to be provided to him and hence in the

absence of the same he may not be in a position to

effectively assist us. He accepts notice and seeks

reasonable amount of time to file an appropriate counter to

the OA or in the alternative obtain appropriate instructions.

3.

Mr.

Yogesh

Sharma,

learned

counsel

for

the

applicants argues that very limited issue raised in the

present OA is assigning responsibility and authority of

reporting the APAR of all Medical Professionals to the

Regional Officer, who does not have knowledge of

medical/technical work. He further clarifies that the

applicants are not placing a challenge on anything nor

seeking any specific relief. All they are requesting is

reassignment of duties be revised against the background

of the requests and prayers made by the applicants.

Although, we do note the submission of learned counsel for

the respondents and recognise that reasonable time should

be extended to him to file an appropriate response, we are

of the view that on account of very small issue involved in

this OA, no useful purpose would be served in dwelling any

further on this OA. We also find that the applicants have

4

made several representations to the Competent Authority

explaining their point of view on the subject and requesting

that the mater be relooked into. These representations are

placed collectively at Annexure A/2 of the OA.

4.

It is our considered opinion that at this stage it is best

left to the Competent Authority, i.e., the Director General of

ESIC to have a fresh look into the mater taking into

consideration the submissions made by the applicants and

take appropriate decision there upon. The decision so

taken should be conveyed to the applicants by way of a

reasoned communication. These limited directions shall be

complied with by the respondent No. 2 within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

order. Before parting, we make it clear that neither we have

examined nor commented upon the merits of the claim of

the applicants.

5.

The OA is disposed of in the background of aforesaid

directions. No costs.

(Manish Garg)

(Tarun Shridhar)

Member (J)

Member (A)

/as/