Suspension ceases after 90 days unless extended by competent authority's order before expiry; committee review alone insufficient, rendering post-90-day continuation illegal.

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. The captioned O.As. are Part Heard.

2. On the last date of hearing, further hearing was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents in order to enable him to submit the relevant judgment/judgments in support of his contention that if the initial suspension has been reviewed by the relevant committee within 90 days from the initial date of suspension of the applicant, even if the order of continuation of such suspension is passed on any date beyond the 90 days, such order of continuation of suspension will not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly submitted: (i) A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal consisting one of us (Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)) has in the case of Mahesh Kumar and Ors. Versus ESIC and Ors. in O.A. No. 3392/2019 and O.A. No. 3394/2019 on 18.12.2020 ruled that any order continuing the initial suspension passed on any date beyond  90 days will not be sustainable in law; (ii) the applicants have preferred representations/appeals dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure A6) and in such view of the matter, interference in the impugned order of continuation of suspension of the Tribunal is not warranted and the O.As. can be disposed of with liberty to the respondents to consider such representations/appeals of the applicants.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants has reiterated that in view of the relevant rules, the initial suspension is required to be reviewed and extended within 90 days and if such extension has not been done within 90 days, the order extending the suspension shall not be sustainable in law.

5. With regard to the pendency of their representations/appeals referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the applicants had not received any order of extension of their initial suspensions, they had preferred representations on 12.11.2025 requesting the respondents for being permitted to mark their attendance and resume their duties and it is only in response to such representations/appeals dated 12.11.2025, the applicants have received the impugned orders of continuation of suspension.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. Admittedly, the issues involved in the captioned O.As. are identical. It is also admitted that O.A. No. 4472/2025 titled ‘Nadir Islam Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Another’ has been heard as the lead case and the captioned O.As. can be disposed of by a common order.

8. The brief undisputed facts in the case of ‘Nadir Islam Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Another’ are that the applicant had joined the respondents organization as Pharmacist which is Group C post in the year 2011. The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure A3) and vide the said order the applicant was also transferred to ESIC Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2025, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3079/2025 seeking quashing of the said order and the said O.A. is still pending adjudication before the Tribunal. Vide an interim order dated 12.08.2025, the Tribunal has stayed the effect of the order dated 08.08.2025, impugned in the said O.A. to the extent of transfer of the applicant and such interim order is still continuing. In the present case, on 31.10.2025, the suspension review committee held its meeting and made the recommendation about the con