Dr K A Paul vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) on 3 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM Order Sheet Item no.: 1 O.A./306/2026 (ERNAKULAM) [ MACP ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 4 Order Dated: 03/11/2026 DR K A PAUL Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC) For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Chekkutty Thazhathedath For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. T.V. Ajayakumar Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal

MA/720/2026 (for condonation of delay) This application is filed by the original applicant, who was in State service and got absorbed in the ESIC in the year 2003 and superannuated as Medical Superintendent. The applicant claims that he is entitled to the 3rd MACP in Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4 with effect from 20.02.2010 and for fixation of pay in PB-4 with Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/- with effect from 20.04.2010. The delay for unspecified days is sought to be explained on the ground that the issue attained finality by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Annexure A-8 judgment in SLP Nos. 17363-17364 of 2021 arising from OP (CAT) No. 51/2020 dated 28.01.2021 and RP No. 76/2021. The entire premise of the delay is sought to be explained on the ground that pursuant to Annexure A-8 judgment, the issue got finalised on 12.08.2025 and hence there is no delay. A perusal of Annexure A-8 clearly indicates that the question of inter se seniority between direct recruit and promotee Nurses were considered by the Hon'ble High Court and it was challenged in Annexure A-8 judgment. MACP is granted reckoning the length of service. Applicant was not a party to the said proceedings. Essentially, the claim of the applicant is that his past State service should be reckoned and financial benefit granted. He had not raised such a claim nor state seniority at any time after absorption. The terms of absorption are governed by the absorption order. Hence his explanation that issue was finalised in Annexure A-8 has no basis. If that be so, the delay cannot be condoned, and the claim for condoning the delay is not at all sustainable. The MA is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay. Accordingly, the OA is rejected as time barred. V RAMA MATHEW MEMBER (A) JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MEMBER (J) A X ( steno 'c' )

Case No O.A./306/2026 Ernakulam Bench List In: Main causelist Item No. 1 Generated by Sherin A.X CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench on 04/11/2026

2026.11.06 10:18:49+05'30' A X Sherin