Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi M.A. No.345/2026 in O.A. No.4327/2025 Reserved on:17.02.2026 Pronounced on:24.02.2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

1. ESIC Medical Laboratory Technologists Association Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Kirti Gupta Aged about 39 years W/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta R/o 2/157, Flat No.TH-2. Rajendra Nagar, Sector-2 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh -201005.

2. Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Mehta Aged about 37 years R/o 22 A, Gali No.01, Vrindavan Garden Sahibabad working as JMLT. ...Applicants (Through Advocate:Mr. Sudarshan Rajan with Mr. Ramesh Rawat)

Versus

1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Through Director General ESIC Headquarters, Panchdeep Bhawan CIG Marg, New Delhi.

2. Medical Commissioner (MA)

Employee State Insurance Corporation HQ Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg New Delhi – 110 002.

3. Deputy Director (MA)

Employee State Insurance Corporation HQ Office, Pnachdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg New Delhi – 110 002. ... Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr.Subhash C. Gupta)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

2. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed seeking directions to keep in abeyance the operation, implementation and effect of various office orders, memorandums and consequential posting orders relating to promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant (now Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist), which have admittedly been issued pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 published on 03.11.2025 and which is under challenge in the pending Original Application.

3. This Tribunal, vide interim order dated 28.11.2025, after considering the submissions of the parties, had clearly recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the applicants and that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them if protective directions were not granted. Accordingly, while permitting the respondents to proceed with the DPC which was already underway, it was specifically directed that the result of the DPC shall not be declared without the prior leave of this Tribunal.

4. The grievance of the applicants in the present MA is that despite the aforesaid interim protection, the respondents, acting through various regional offices, have proceeded to issue and give effect to promotion orders and consequential posting orders to the post of Laboratory Assistant on the basis of the unamended Recruitment Rules, thereby virtually rendering the interim order dated 28.11.2025 nugatory. It is not in dispute that the said orders flow directly from the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, which forms the subject matter of challenge in the OA.

5. The applicants have also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011) along with Anurag Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9747 of 2011). The relevant paragraphs 38.1 and 38.2 thereof have been extracted hereinabove.

“38.1 Returning to the facts of the present case, we have noticed that the High Court has proceeded on the premise that the vacancies occurring before the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006 must be governed by the 1966 Rules. The decision of the High Court took within its sweep even the 7 new posts of Labour Officers that were sanctioned by an inter-departmental letter dated 20.07.2006, which included even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment. The direction of the High Court to encompass even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment was on the ground that the posts were sanctioned on 20.07.2006, which is prior to the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006.

38.2 We have already held that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. We have also