BHARAT KUMAR DANGI vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) on 29 October 2026

ORDER

Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Being aggrieved by the order No.A-48011/6/2022-estt. dated 20.02.2025, i.e. list of ineligible candidates, whereby the applicant was declared ineligible by not counting service rendered by him in the previous region, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:- “a) That the order impugned dated 20/02/25 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent the applicant is declared ineligible against the post of Assistant/Head Clerk for the period from 2019 to 2021.

b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat entire period of service since 2014 when applicant entered as a regular employee.

c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the applicant as eligible by considering the period from the date of initial appointment. 10/03/2014 till the date of consideration for the purpose of eligibility for promotion of Assistant/Head Clerk as per The Employees State Insurance Corporation (Head Clerk/Assistant) Recruitment Regulations, 1997

d) That failure on the part of the department, despite specific and clear rules & referred judgment in applicant's representation in respect of same department in similar facts and grounds, failure to consider the applicant's representation thoughtfully indicates the Administrative malice and hence exemplary cost and compensation be inflicted for such violation of rules.

e) Any other appropriate order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the light of the above, may kindly be issued in favour of the applicant.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

3 OA No.146/2025

f) Costs of the application may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant. ”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 Applicant was selected as a UDC on the basis of computer-based test held on 19.01.2014 and subsequently joined as UDC on 10.03.2014 at Gulbarga ESIC Medical College. Thereafter, applicant requested for inter-regional transfer from Karnataka region to Rajasthan region, which was accepted by the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 11.10.2018 and accordingly his region was changed from Karnataka to Rajasthan. Thereafter, he was posted at ESIC Office, Pali vide order dated 15.10.2018. 2.2 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant was relieved vide order dated 07.12.2018 and joined ESIC branch office Pali on 10.12.2018. Thereafter, he was transferred from ESIC Office, Pali to ESIC Office, Jodhpur, on 27.02.2021 where he joined on 13.09.2021. Applicant further stated that respondent No.2 vide communication dated 22.11.2024 notified the process for conducting Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Assistant/Head Clerk against the LDCE quota available on 31st December of every year from 2019 to 2025. 2.3 It is apt to mention that the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Head Clerk/Assistant) Recruitment Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Regulation of 1997) are the statutory provisions that regulate the recruitment procedure for Head Clerk and Assistant. Applicant, further mentioned the schedule with the regulation which

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

4 OA No.146/2025

provides that the post of Head Clerk-cum-Assistant is a Group C ministerial post filled up by way of promotion whereof 75% posts are to be filled by promotion based on seniority subject to rejection of unfit and rest 25% are to be filled by promotion on merit based on Departmental Competitive Examination confined to UDCs with three years of non-fortuitous. Further, the respondent No.2 issued notification on 22.11.2024 to conduct the Departmental Competitive Examination including for the post of Assistant/Head Clerk for the vacancy of the period of year 2019 to 2025. 2.4 Pursuant to above notification, the applicant applied on 03.12.2024. It is appropriate to mention that the applicant had already spent more than 10 years in service as he was recruited as UDC on 10.03.2014, which fulfills his candidature requirement to promotion as Head Clerk-cum-Assistant against 25% quota for the notified vacancies issued vide order dated 03.12.2024 for the vacancies for the period of years 2019 to 2025 as a departmental candidate. The name of the applicant was placed at serial No.3 of the ibid notification with the further direction that the applicant is ineligible for the years 2019 to 2021 as per IRT policy. It was also mentioned in the list of the ineligible candidate that that the applicant joined the Rajasthan region on 10.12.2018 on the basis of inter-region transfer therefore he was declared ineligible against the notified vacancies of the years 2019 to 2021 because according to the respondents, the applicant had not completed three years of service which was essential to make him eligible for appearing in the departmental examination.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

5 OA No.146/2025

2.5 The applicant assailed the decision of the respondents on the ground that declaring him ineligible for the vacancies of the years 2019- 2021 is not in conformity with the regulation of 1997 where the requirement for eligibility is 3 years regular service, whereof the applicant admittedly possesses, since he had joined after selection of the direct recruit of UDC in the year 2014. He also clarified that the respondents cannot exclude the period spent in the previous region before he was transferred on the basis of IRT inter-regional transfer from Karnataka to Rajasthan for deciding the eligibility criteria of the applicant. Additionally, it is a fact that the employee who on their own request were allowed inter-regional transfer, loses seniority but that does not wipe out the regular service spent in the previous region before inter- regional transfer. 2.6 Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he submitted representation dated 09.12.2024 and thereafter reminder on 22.01.2025 against the decision of the respondents declaring him ineligible for the vacancies for the years 2019 to 2021. He also relied upon the judgment decided by Coordinate Bench in OA No. 137/2022 (Rajendra Kumar Deegwal vs Union of India) decided on 02.05.2023 and of Vidyānand Kumar vs ESIC in OA No.2319 of 2018 of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, which was also challenged before Hon'ble Delhi High Court Vide WP (C) No.16386 of 2023 and also order of SLP No.65956 of 2023 (ESIC versus Raju) filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

6 OA No.146/2025

2.7 The applicant did not receive any response from the respondents, therefore, he filed the present OA on the following ground. That the applicant entered as a regular selected candidate after qualifying the competitive examination and joined as a regular substantive UDC on 10.03.2014. Therefore, as per the provision of Employee State Insurance Corporation (Head Clerk/ Assistant) Recruitment Regulation 1997, the essential requirement is 3 years’ regular service of UDC. Hence, as per aforementioned provision the applicant had already completed 3 years of service in the year 2017 itself and denying him eligibile for the period from 2019 to 2021 is a clear violation of the statutory regulation of 1997. 2.8 The respondents excluded the 3 years period from 10.03.2014 to 10.12.2018 on the basis of inter-regional transfer from Karnataka region to the Rajasthan region, however there is no provision in the ibid Regulation of 1997 prescribes regular service in the Rajasthan region nor can there be any forfeiture of regular service rendered by the applicant in previous region before inter region transfer for the purpose of counting of necessary period for eligibility. He also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ESIC vs. Raju (SLP No.65956/2023) where it was categorically stated on the question of regular service and seniority that both the concepts are quite independent of each other. A person may be eligible, fit or qualified to be considered for promotion, it does not however necessarily mean that he must be treated as having requisite seniority for entry in the zone of consideration. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the similar controversy in the case of Renu Malik versus Union of India

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

7 OA No.146/2025

reported in 1994 1 SCC page 373 wherein its para 10, it observed as under:- “We are of the view that the Tribunal fell into patent error in dismissing the application of the appellant. A bare reading of para 2 (ii) of the executive instructions dated may 20,1980 shows that the transferee is not entitled to count the service rendered by him/her in the former collectorate for the purpose of seniority in the new charge. The later part of that para cannot be read differently. The transferee is to be treated as a new entrant in the collectorate to which he is transferred for the purpose of seniority. It means that the appellant would come up for consideration for promotion as per her turn in the seniority list in the transferee unit and only if she has put in 2 years' service in the category of UDC. But when she is so considered, her past service in the previous collectorate cannot be ignored for the purpose of determining her eligibility as per rule 4 aforesaid. Her seniority in the previous collectorate is taken away for the purpose of counting her seniority in the new charge but that has no relevance for judging her eligibility for promotion under rule 4 which is a statutory rule. The eligibility for promotion has to be determined with reference to Rule 4 alone, which prescribes the criteria for eligibility. There is no other way of reading the instructions aforementioned. If the instructions are read the way the Tribunal has done, it may be open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness." Similarly, view has been reiterated in the case of Union of India and others versus CN Ponnappan reported in (1996) 1 SCC 524, which states as follows:- “4. The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

8 OA No.146/2025

periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer, he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place form where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred.” Learned counsel for the applicant also relied uon the judgment of State of Maharashtra versus Uttam Vishnu Pawar reported in (2008) 2 SCC 646, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Therefore, in view of the consistent approach of this Court, it is no more res integra that the incumbent on transfer to the new department may not get the seniority but his experience of the past service rendered will be counted for the purpose of other benefits like promotion or for the higher pay scale as per the scheme of the Government.”

2.9 Similarly he has also given number judgments inter alia judgment OA number 137 in 2022 (Rajendra Kumar Deegwal versus Union of India) decided on 02.05.2023, Vidhyanand Kumar versus ESIC in OA No.2319/2018 of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, OA No.97/2018 decided on 28.02.2023, which was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court Delhi by WP(C) No.16386 2023 which was dismissed on 19.12.2023, therefore, he prays that his OA deserves to be allowed.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

9 OA No.146/2025

3. E-converso, the respondents filed their reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicant and further submitted that the respondents have not violated any of the provision and acted in accordance with the policies of IRT applicable to the applicant and the applicant had not challenged the provision of the said policy dated 05.03.2013, therefore no relief could be granted. He further submitted that based on the inter-regional transfer policy and regulation, the applicant is not eligible for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the vacancies for the period of the years 2019 to 2024. He further clarified that the Employee State Insurance Corporation (Head Clerk/Assistant) Recruitment Regulations, 1997 does specify the eligibility criteria for promotion. The said promotion is also subject to other rules and regulations applicable to the inter-regional transfer of the applicant. 3.1 The respondents further contended that the applicant was allowed to inter-regional transfer from Karnataka to Rajasthan on 18.02.2018 wherein paragraph 1, it was categorically stated that inter-regional transfer has been made in accordance with the A-33/19/IRT/LDC/2010- ESTT-II dated 05.03.2013 which stipulated that the final inter-regional transfer policy for and the same, the qualifying service condition for purpose of granting promotion to the next post would be counted from the date of his/her joining the new region and that the beneficiary of such transfer shall not claim any benefit, seniority etc. in respect of service rendered in the parent region. Further, it is appropriate to mention that the applicant has knowingly agreed with the said policy

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

10 OA No.146/2025

while applying for the inter-regional policy and accepting the benefit of the same. 3.2 Additionally, the applicant himself addressed a letter to the respondent authorities on 12.10.2018 requesting for inter-regional transfer request and therein he had voluntary accepted the terms and conditions of the IRT policy. The respondents also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary to the Government Department of Health and Family Welfare and another versus C.K. Devali in Civil Appeal No.4356 of 2025, wherein the ratio was laid down for the similarly situated employee. Learned counsel for the respondents further assailed the argument raised by the applicant that he had completed 3 years of regular service in the year 2017 when he joined as UDC in Karnataka region in the year 2014 and further joined in Rajasthan region in the year 2018, because the IRT Policy states, in unambiguous terms, that qualifying service for the purpose of granting promotion to the next post would be counted from the date of his/her joining in the new region only. The applicant had knowingly and willingly agreed with the said provision of the Policy while applying inter-regional transfer. On the basis of above, he submits that there is no merit in the OA and the same deserves to be dismissed.

4. The respondents also filed an Additional Affidavit, wherein they have submitted that the Tribunal directed the respondents to place on record the result of the applicant declared on 07.11.2024. Pursuant to which, the respondents had declared the result of the applicant on

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

11 OA No.146/2025

07.11.2025, wherein he was declared qualified in the examination in question.

5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

6. In the present OA, it is undisputed fact that the applicant has joined as a UDC on 10.03.2014 in Karnataka region and subsequently, he applied for inter-regional transfer from Karnataka to Rajasthan, which was accepted and he joined at ESIC Branch Office Pali on 10.12.2018. Thereafter, the respondents issued a notification for promotion to the post from UDC to Assistant/Head Clerk on the basis of 25% quota of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the vacancies arising on 31st December of every year from 2019 to 2025. They published the list of the ineligible candidates, where the name of the applicant is placed at serial No.3, however, the applicant was declared unfit/ineligible vide impugned notification No.A- 48011/6/2022-estt. Dated 20.02.2025 for the vacancies of the years 2019 to 2021 on the ground that he has not rendered required service of 3 years in the Rajasthan region. Contrary to above reason declaring him ineligible, the applicant contended that the regular service should be counted from the date of his joining as a direct recruitment in the post of UDC i.e. on 10.03.2014. 6.1 The issue for adjudication before this Tribunal in the instant OA is whether the service rendered by the applicant in the Karnataka Region before his transfer to Rajasthan Region can be counted as qualifying

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

12 OA No.146/2025

service for the purpose of granting promotion to the next post under the quota of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). 6.2 In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the condition No. 9 of Revised Inter Regional Transfer Policy in respect of ministerial staff upto Assistant Grade circulated vide letter dated 05.03.2013, which reads as under:- “Qualifying service condition for the purpose of granting promotion to the next post would be counted from the date of his/her joining in the new region.” While taking support of the above condition, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents have rightly held the applicant ineligible to appear in the LDCE for the post of Assistant vide memorandum dated 20.02.2025 (Annex. A/1). 6.3 On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue involved in the instant OA is no longer res-integra. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-

(1) Renu Mullick v. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 373;

(2) Union of India & Ors v. C.N. Ponnappan, (1996) 1 SCC 524;

(3) State of Maharashtra & Ors v. Uttam Vishnu Panwar, (2008) 2 SCC 646;

(4) Raju v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Anr, OA No. 97/2018 decided on 28.02.2023 by the Principal Bench. 6.4 Hon’ble Principal Bench in the matter of Raju (supra) while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of C.N. Ponnappan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The service

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

13 OA No.146/2025

rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred”, allowed that OA and quashed and set aside the impugned orders to the extent of not counting the past service of the applicants rendered in another region for the purpose of eligibility for appearing in the LDCE and the respondents were directed to count the services rendered by the applicants in another region before transfer to Delhi for eligibility to appear in the LDCE. The above judgment of Hon’ble Principal Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) NO. 16309/2023 (CMA NO 65678/2023 and 65679/2023) wherein Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of the Principal Bench in the matter of Raju (supra). 6.5 So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondents regarding counting qualifying service for the purpose of granting promotion under the Inter Regional Transfer Policy is concerned, it applies for determining seniority regarding promotion. In other words, the above condition would come into play when promotion is granted on seniority as basis. The above principle cannot be applied in the cases of promotion under LDCE quota which is intended to select the meritorious persons for promotion on the basis of competitive examination from amongst the employees in feeder grade and not seniority as one of the principal criteria for promotion. Therefore, persons transferred from another Region cannot be denied participation in the LDCE. The seniority and regular service making an employee eligible for appearing in the LDCE are altogether two different issues. The service rendered in previous Region may not be counted for the purpose of seniority;

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

14 OA No.146/2025

however, earlier service rendered cannot be wiped out from the length of service for the purpose of counting experience required for being eligible to appear in the LDCE by ignoring their experience in the earlier Region. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary to Govt. Department of Health & Family Welfare and Another v. K.C. Devaki, (2025) 10 SCC 534 relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. That matter pertains to seniority and not to counting service for the purpose of eligibility to appear in the LDCE. 6.6 In our considered view, the regular service rendered by the applicant in the Karnataka Region on the post of UDC would certainly be counted for the purpose of making him eligible to appear in the LDCE for the post of Assistant in Rajasthan Region. 6.7 In view of the above, the instant OA deserves to be allowed. 6.8 Accordingly, while allowing the OA, the respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the applicant in Karnataka Region towards qualifying service for the purpose of deciding his eligibility to appear in the LDCE pursuant to Notification dated 22.11.2024 (Annex. A/6). Resultantly, the impugned memorandum dated 20.02.2025 (Annex. A/1) qua applicant is quashed and set aside to the extent declaring the applicant ineligible to appear in the LDCE against the post of Assistant by not counting service rendered by him in Karnataka Region for the purpose of eligibility to appear in the LDCE. Needless to mention that the applicant is entitled to get promotion if he stands in the

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

15 OA No.146/2025

merit on the basis of marks obtained by him in the LDCE against relevant vacancy/quota. 6.9 The OA is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Rss Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara