Courts cannot direct pay scale parity or recruitment rule changes for ESIC employees as executive policy matter, given differing qualifications.

ORDER

Present OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

“a. Quash the impugned final order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Respondents whereby their representations have been rejected (Annexure A-1) by the respondents herein.

b. Direct the respondents to grant the pay scale of PB-2 (Rs. 9300-34800 with a grade pay of Rs. 4200/-) to all medical social workers employed in various hospitals of ESIC w.e.f. their respective dates of joining with all consequential benefits.

c. Direct the respondents to amend the recruitments rules to the post of MSW, ESIC and bring them at par with that of their counterparts working in various Govt. of India's hospitals by amending the educational qualifications as also the pay scales of Medical Social Workers.

d. Award the cost of the present O.A. in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.

e. Pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 Applicants, 19 in number, have joined as Medical Social Worker (MSW) in different hospitals run by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in Pay Band-1 (Rs.5200- 20200) with Grade Pay of Rs.2400. They, however, came to know through RTI application that the MSW in various Institutes under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare particularly in AIIMS, Dr. RML Hospital, Kalawati Saran Hospital, Safdarjung Hospital and Lady Hardinge Medical College are getting pay scale under PB-2 with GP of Rs.4200. The applicants represented to the respondents seeking parity of pay with their counterparts working in other similarly placed medical institutions, Government Hospitals vide their legal notice (Annexure A-12). The respondents have not taken any action in response to the representations submitted by them. Being aggrieved, they have filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicants have also filed their rejoinder.

4. Submissions by Learned Counsel for Applicants

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants refers to Section 17 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act, 1948) which states as follows:

“17. Staff.—(1) The Corporation may employ such other staff of officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient transaction of its business provided that the sanction of the Central Government shall be obtained for the creation of any post the maximum monthly salary of which exceeds such salary as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) (a) The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay:

Provided that where the Corporation is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government:

[Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis.]

(b) In determining the corresponding scales of pay of the members of the staff under clause (a), the Corporation shall have regard to the educational qualifications, method of recruitment, duties and responsib