Full Judgment Text
$~90 to 92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 203/2008
UOI THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Mr.
Priyansh Kanwar and Mr. Vikas Roy,
Advocates
versus
CHAHAT RAM & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 1821/2008, CM APPL. 3508/2008 & 3510/2008
U.O.I & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari,
CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Ms.
Samiksha, Advocates
versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 9512/2009
DIRECTOR GENERAL ESIC HEADQUARTER
& ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari,
CGSC with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Ms.
Samiksha, Advocates
versus
ANIL KUMAR KALRA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 23.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. These three writ petitions assail orders passed by the Central
1
Administrative Tribunal whereby the respondents, who were
Laboratory Assistants in various hospitals were held to be entitled to
the pay scale of ₹ 4000-6000 with effect from 1 January 1996.
2
2. In similar writ petitions, being WP (C) Nos. 3136/2006 ,
3 4
4377/2007 and 4668/2008 , at the instance of the Union of India,
orders passed by the Tribunal were complied with by the petitioners
even while the present writ petitions were pending before this Court.
3. WP (C) Nos. 3136/2006, 4377/2007 and 4668/2008 were
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by the following
order dated 2 February 2026:
“1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that
in compliance of the order passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents who were working as
Laboratory Assistants have been granted revised pay scale of'
₹4,000-6,000, with effect from 01.01.1996, as per
recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission and the
Respondents have already demitted office after attaining the age of
superannuation.
2. They submit that while leaving the question of law open,
1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
2
UOI & Ors. v. Kirat Ram & Ors.
3
UOI & Ors. v. Sanjay Kaushik & Ors.
4
UOI & Ors. v. V.S. Dahiya & Ors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 2 of 6
the writ petitions may be disposed of as the Petitioners do not wish
to make any recovery from the Respondents.
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present writ
petitions along with the pending applications are disposed of while
leaving the question of law open.
4. A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the
connected matters.”
4. Thus, in similar matters, as the Union of India made a statement
before this Court that they were not intending to recover the amounts
paid to the respondents, this Court disposed of the writ petitions
keeping the question of law open.
5
5. Another batch of writ petitions, being WP (C) 6414/2015 ,
6 7 8 9 10
3781/2011 , 18/2015 , 6423/2015 , 8261/2016 , 8264/2016 were
also disposed of by the following order passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court on 4 February 2026, following the earlier order dated 2
February 2026 in WP (C) 3136/2006 and connected matters:
“1. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners are at ad idem
that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order
dated 02.02.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3136/2006 and
connected matters.
2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submit that in
compliance of the order passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents who were 'working as
Laboratory Assistants have been granted revised pay scale of
₹4,000-6,000, with effect from 01.01.1996, as per
recommendations of Central Pay Commission and the
Respondents have already demitted office after attaining the age of
superannuation.
5
The Director General (ESIC) & Ors. v. Rakesh Saini & Ors.
6
Director General ESI Head Quarter & Anr. v. Anita Yadav & Ors.
7
Director General ESI Corporation & Anr. v. Brham Pal & Ors.
8
The Director General (ESIC) & Ors. v. Kirti Sharma & Ors.
9
Director General (Employees State Insurance Corporation) & Ors. v. Munish Kumar & Ors.
10
Director General (Employees State Insurance Corporation) & Ors. v. Dharambir Singh Ranga &
Ors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 3 of 6
3. They submit that while leaving the question of law open,
the writ petitions may be disposed of as the Petitioners do not wish
to make any recovery from the Respondents.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present writ
petitions along with the pending applications are disposed of while
leaving the question of law open.
5. A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the
connected matters.”
6. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the respondents,
submits that while the respondents in the batch of writ petitions
headed by WP (C) 3136/2006, which were disposed of on 2 February
2026, were all retired employees, some of the respondents in WP (C)
6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015, were serving employees.
7. As such, the statement recorded in para 2 of the order dated 4
February 2026 applies both to serving as well as retired employees.
8. Mr. Tiwari, learned CGSC, who appears for the UOI, in WP
(C) 1821/2008 and 9512/2009, at this point, interjects to submit that
the concession, if any, was at the instance of the ESIC and that the
Union of India should not be bound by the said concession.
9. Accepting this submission would result in this Court becoming
a party to a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Mr. Tiwari is unable to dispute the position that so far as the
aspect of recovery is concerned, there is no difference between the
Laboratory Assistants who were working in the ESI hospitals and the
Laboratory Assistants who were working in the hospitals under the
UOI, all of whom are covered by the aforesaid batch of writ petitions,
which were heard together. We cannot, therefore, be party to a
situation in which no recovery would be made from the Laboratory
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 4 of 6
Assistants of the ESIC hospitals and recovery would still be made
from the Laboratory Assistants of hospitals under the UOI.
10. Earlier, there were some disputes as to whether the respondents
in the writ petitions covered by the aforesaid orders dated 2 February
2026 and 4 February 2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench were
serving or retired Laboratory Assistants. Subsequently, the petitioners
have also confirmed that some of the respondents in WP(C)
6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015 are in fact serving employees.
There is, therefore, no distinction between the serving Laboratory
Assistants in WP(C) Nos.6414/2015, 3781/2011, 6423/2015 and
respondents in the present case.
11. They would, therefore, be entitled to equal treatment from the
Court.
12. Besides the payments, of which recovery is being sought, were
made to the respondents as far back as between 2006 and 2009 i.e.,
close to two decades prior to today. Mr. Tiwari points out that
undertakings were taken from the respondents, to agree to recoveries
in the event that the payments were found to be in excess. However,
Ms. Priyadarshini points out that similar undertakings were taken
from the respondents in the batch of writ petitions disposed of, by the
aforesaid two orders. If, despite these undertakings, in the batch of
writ petitions covered by the aforesaid two orders, the Union of India
and the ESIC made a statement that they were not intending to effect
recoveries and on that basis writ petitions were disposed of, a similar
fate must visit these writ petitions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 5 of 6
13. Accordingly, we bind the petitioners to their undertakings in the
aforesaid two batches of writ petitions to the effect that no recoveries
would be made from the respondents herein. As no other issue
survives for consideration, these writ petitions are also disposed of,
leaving the question of law open, in terms similar to the orders passed
on 2 February 2026 in WP (C) 3136/2006, 4377/2007 and 4668/2008
and 4 February 2026 in WP (C) 6414/2015, 3781/2011, 18/2015,
6423/2015, 8261/2016, 8264/2016.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 23, 2026 /yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
18:18:11
W.P.(C) 203/2008 & connected matters Page 6 of 6