Delhi High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs Esi Corporation And Anr on 20 October, 2011
Author: Gita Mittal
6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.8657/2010
Date of Decision : 20th October, 2011
%
PARDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Adv.
versus
ESI CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Yakesh Anand and
Mr. Murari Kumar, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. Heard. The present writ petition relates to selection in 2009
to the post of Nursing Orderly with Employees State Insurance
Corporation. It is also not disputed that the selection process
commenced in the year 2009. The selection process with regard
to the post of Nursing Orderly was a subject matter of challenge
before this Court which writ petition was transferred to the
Central Administrative Tribunal and culminated in the judgment
dated 6th December, 2010. Nine persons challenged the orders
passed by the Tribunal by way of different writ petitions.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
entitlement to the benefit given in the decision dated 14th July,
2010 by this Court in W.P.(C)No.4255/2010 titled ESI Corporation
vs. Shri Surender Kumar along with other writ petitions.
3. The petitioner points out that his writ petition being
W.P.(C)No.13572/2009 was also pending before this Court but
was not listed when the aforenoticed bunch of writ petitions came
up for consideration on 14th July, 2010. As a result the petitioner
was denied the benefit which has been given to identically placed
persons (in WP(C)No.4255/2010).
This position is undisputed.
4. It appears that by the order dated 14th July, 2010, the
statement of the respondent was recorded to the effect that an
equitable solution to the problem at hand could be found which
would not create any administrative chaos and would preserve
the rights of the candidate who had been empanelled, without
going into the merits of the impugned order dated 6th December,
2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
respondents had agreed to offer letters of appointment to the writ
petitioners in the petitions take up on 14th July, 2010 for the
reason that they had scored reasonably high in the order of merit.
Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over today in
Court a copy of the letter dated 12th October, 2011 submitting
that as a result of resignation of Shri Manish Kumar Bhadola, a
candidate in the unreserved category, who had joined as a
Nursing Orderly on 8th June, 2009 but resigned from service on
11th August, 2011, one vacancy in the unreserved category is
available.
5. In view of the above position, there remains no difficulty for
appointing the petitioner, who is a candidate in the unreserved
category, against the available vacancy.
6. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious
that the petitioner would not be entitled to any consequential
benefits in the nature of seniority or back wages. The
entitlements shall follow in accordance with law from the date of
the petitioner's appointment.
7. It is directed that the respondents shall proceed with the
appointment of the petitioner to the post of Nursing Orderly and
ensure that the appropriate orders in this behalf are
communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks
from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of
service only with effect from the date of appointment as per the
rules. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as
precedent.
This writ petition is dispose of in the above terms
CM No.22014/2010
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this
application does not survive for adjudication any further and is
accordingly disposed of.
Dasti to the parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
OCTOBER 20, 2011
mk
