Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Manish Kumar Saran, Ms.Ananya Tyagi, Mr.Siddhant
Sharma & Mr.Aditya Mani Saran, Advs
Through: Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr.Soumitra Chatterjee &
Mr.Himan K Pal, Advs
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 12850/2025 & CM APPL. 52492/2025 & 52494/2025
2. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 02.05.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 511/2020, titled Dr. Surender Dabas and Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondents herein, in the following terms:-
3. The limited grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is against the direction of the learned Tribunal to grant the minimum of the pay scale admissible to regular medical officers to the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in passing the above direction, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appointment letters of the respondents itself state that the respondents were working only 5 hours per day and six days a week, unlike regular employees. He submits that the respondents were also appointed against a consolidated salary and, therefore, were not entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable for regular employees, who not only had to work the full day, but were also in a post which was transferable in nature. He submits that there are other distinctions also between the respondents appointed as contractual employees and others who are appointed against regular posts.
5. Issue notice.
6. Notice is accepted by Ms.Sriparna Chatterjee, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.
7. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., 2024:INSC:1034, and of this Court in Roshan Khan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7928, she submits that no fault can be found with the direction of the learned Tribunal directing the petitioners to grant the minimum pay scale of the post at which the respondents are working. She submits that even the regular employees are working only for 6 hours a day and, therefore, an artificial restriction has been created just to deny the lawful and legitimate relief to the respondents. She further submits that the plea of restricted number of hours was not even urged by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal. She submits that other contractual employees are being paid the minimum of the pay scale by the petitioners notwithstanding the restriction on the number of hours of working.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
9. From the reading of the Impugned Order, it appears that the petitioners had not raised the plea of restriction of number of hours and the distinction sought to be urged by them between the respondents and the employees who are working against the regular posts.
10. Given the above, we dispose of this petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal with an appropriate application. In case such application is moved by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal shall consider the effect of the same on the ultimate relief to be granted to the respondents.
11. With the above directions, the petition along with pending applications is disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 25, 2025/rv/ik