MUKESH KUMAR TIWARI vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)

Reserved on 24.08.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
th
This the 16 day of October, 2026
Original Application No. 888 of 2023

Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
1. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari aged about 35 years, son of Om Prakash
Tiwari, O.T. Assistant, Resident of Khasra No. 167/168, Raja Rahul
City, Near Malak Railway Station Neelnatha, Lucknow.
2. Brijendra Singh son of Indrajeet, O.T. Assistant, Resident of 14, Nagla
Mauji, Ratanpur Fatiyapur,Patiyali Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh.

…..Applicants
By Adv: Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through Secretary Employees State Insurance
Corporation, (Ministry of Labour and Employment), Government of
India.
2. Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep
Bhawan Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
3. Regional Director/ Additional Commissioner Regional Office
Panchdeep Bhawan, Sarvoday Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.
4. Deputy Director (Administration) Employees State Corporation
Hospital, Jajmau Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Ms Jyotsana Srivastava
O R D E R

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicants and Ms. Jyotsana Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Page 1 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicants,
seeking following reliefs:
“1) To quash the orders dated 11.09.2023 passed by Respondent No.3 by
which representation of the applicants have been rejected illegally by the
Respondent No. 3

11) To direct the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to provide upgraded pay scale in
Level-4 of 7th Central Pay Commission to the applicants as provided other
employees as per Head Quarter Order vide file No. 111-A-18/15/OT-
CSR/Court case-2022-admin-2 dated 23.11.2022 from the date of their
promotion on the post of OT Assistant along with interest.

III) Any other and further order may be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper under fact and circumstances of the instant case, in
favour of the applicant.

IV) Award the costs of the petition to the applicant.”
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are that the
applicants joined the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) as
Nursing Orderly through direct recruitment. The Applicant No. 1
joined the respondents’ department on 08.10.2010 and Applicant No. 2
on 23.03.2011. Thereafter, both the applicants were promoted as O.T.
Assistants on 26.02.2020 and their initial pay fixation was carried out by
the respondents vide order dated 30.03.2020 in Level-3.
3.1 It is the contention of the applicants that employees working on
analogous posts in other regions of ESIC have been granted the
upgraded pay scale corresponding to Pay Level-4 under the 7th CPC.
They rely upon the order dated 23.11.2022 issued pursuant to the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A. No. 4644/2015 (Ajit Singh & Ors vs Union of India &
Ors). The applicants have also relied upon the judgment passed by
Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2995/2014 ( Dharmveer
Singh Ranga & Ors. v. ESIC & Ors.) decided on 19.04.2016 , wherein
O.T. Assistants/CSSD/CSR Assistants were granted the pay scale of Rs.
4000-6000 on the ground of parity with similarly placed employees.
3.2 The applicants submitted representations dated 09.01.2023,
followed by reminders dated 28.02.2023 and 10.04.2023, seeking grant
Page 2 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

of the upgraded pay level. Thereafter, they approached this Tribunal by
filing O.A. No. 553/2023 before the Tribunal, wherein vide order dated
17.07.2023, the respondents were directed to consider and decide their
representation by a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance
thereof, the applicants’ representations were considered and were
rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2023.
3.3 It is the contention of the applicants that the rejection is arbitrary
since the respondents themselves have admitted that similarly situated
O.T. Assistants have been granted Pay Level-4 pursuant to the
Tribunal's decision in O.A. No. 4644/2015. Feeling aggrieved, the
applicants have again approached this Tribunal by way of filing the
instant Original Application.
4.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating
therein that the applicants who were party in the Original Application
No. 4644/2015 were granted the benefit of Level-4 and the instant
Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicants reiterating
their averments.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard
and records have been gone through.
7. It is noted from the records that the applicants are seeking parity
with similarly situated employees who have been granted Level-4 in
compliance of the directions of Principal Bench of this Tribunal. It
further reflects that the applicants have relied upon the judgment of
Principal Bench of this Tribunal passed in Original Application No.
4644/2015. For better understanding, the relevant portion of the said
judgment is quoted as under:
“The applicants are aggrieved that they have not been awarded the pay scale of
Rs.4000-100-6000 pursuant to the recommendations of 5th Central Pay
Commission (CPC) in the year 1996, whereas this pay scale has been awarded
to several other similarly placed categories.

Page 3 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are variously
employed/appointed and CSSD Assistant/Technicians as OT
Assistants/CSSD Technicians in the Employees State Insurance Corporation
(ESIC). Subsequent to the recommendations of 5th CPC in the year 1996,
they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules got introduced in the year 1997 and vide the Notification
dated 30.09.1997 of the Ministry of Finance, several categories were awarded
the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/-. The applicants are aggrieved that all of
these categories, which were awarded higher pay scale, were enjoying the same
pay scale as the applicants prior to the recommendations of the 5th CPC
…..

8. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the
respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 to the present
applicants, in accordance with the order/judgment dated 19.04.2016 of this
Tribunal in OA No.2995/2014 with connected OA titled Dharambir Singh
Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. However, as
directed in the judgment in OA No.2996/2014, the applicants shall be entitled
to arrears only with effect from the date of filing of this OA, without any
interest thereon. It is clarified that, as recorded, this OA was filed on
17.12.2016. They shall also not be entitled to payment of any interest upon
the arrears so calculated. The respondents are directed to comply with the
directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. We add that this order shall be subject to the outcome of Writ
Petition filed by the respondents challenging the earlier orders of this Tribunal
on this issue…..
8. Learned counsel for the applicants have also placed the letter
dated 23.11.2022, whereby the aforesaid order of this Tribunal has been
implemented. The relevant portion of the said implementation order is
reproduced as under:
“F.no.- 111-A-18/15/OT-CSR/CourtCase/2022-Admn.2Date:23.11.2022
To,
The Medical Suptd./Director(Med.)Noida.
ESI Hospital/D(M)N,
Okhla / Jhilmil/ Basaidarapur /Rohini/ Noida/ Faridabad/ Gurugram/
Manesar/ Sahibabad/ Delhi/Haryana /UP

Sub: Reg implementation of orders of Hon'ble CAT, PB. New Delhi in
Q.A. no. 4644/2015 filed by Sh. Ajit Singh & Others,
Sir/Madam,
Please find enclosed Hqrs. Letter no. 18015/21/2022-LIG&INT dated
01/11/2022 along with the order dated 04/08/2022 passed by the Hon'ble
CAT, PB, New Delhi in O.A. no. 4644/2015 filed by Sh. Ajit Singh & others,
with the request to implement the same.
Compliance report of the above orders may be submitted at the earliest
possible.
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”
9. As per the applicants, Writ Petition No. 6414/2015 and connected
matters have also been disposed of by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Page 4 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

vide order dated 04.02.2026. The relevant portion of the said order is
quoted as under:
“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 Vth Central Pay Commission and the Respondents have
already demitted office after attaining the age of superannuation.
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.”
10 . The above judgments relate to grant of pay scales w.e.f.
th
01.01.1996 after implementation of recommendations of 5 Pay
Commission. In the instant case, it is noted that the applicants joined
the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) through direct
recruitment as Nursing Orderly on 08.10.2010 and 23.03.2011.
Thereafter, they were promoted as OT Assistant in February, 2020. On
their promotion their pay was fixed in Pay Level-3. The applicants have
been arguing that their pay may be fixed in the Pay Level-4 as per
headquarter order No. 111-A-18/15/OT-CSR/Courtcase/2022/asmin-2
dated 23.11.2022. The applicants are also praying for fixation of their
pay in Level-4 in the light of order of Principal Bench of this Tribunal
dated 04.08.2022 in OA No. 4644/2015. It is noted that in OA No.
4644/2015 the applicants were aggrieved that they had not been
awarded the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 pursuant to the
recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in the year
1996, whereas this pay scale has been awarded to several other similarly
placed categories . Since the applicants have joined in 2010 and 2011
th
respectively i.e. much after the implementation of recommendations of 5
Pay Commission and the applicants were not born in cadre on 01.01.1996,
Page 5 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

the prayer of the said judgment in OA No. 4644/2015 will not apply to
the applicants in the instant Original Application.
11. It is settled principle that an employee cannot clam pay scale
parity, seniority or promotion benefits from a date or period when they
were not yet appointed or “born” into that specific cadre. Similar issue
fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maheshkumar Chandulal Patel & Anr vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors .
in Civil appeal No. …./2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9098/2018,
wherein it was observed as under:
32. It is to be noted that in the present case, the anomaly in pay is not a direct
result of Rule 21. Rather, the alleged anomaly arose because the 85 Assistant
Professors [1984-95 Group] have been granted the benefit of Senior
Scale/Selection Grade Pay by taking into account the ad hoc services that they
have rendered in the past. Therefore, Rule 21 becomes inapplicable in the
present case.
33 . Moreover, if the present appeals are allowed, then it would amount
to giving benefit to the appellants and others of the earlier years,
during which admittedly they were not even born in the cadre and not
even serving. This would go against the principle of equity. Such a
benefit cannot be claimed by the Petitioners for the years of service
that they have not actually rendered.
12. The respondents have rejected the representation of the
applicants on 11.09.2023. The grounds mentioned in the case of both the
applicants are similar and the grounds mentioned in the case of
applicant-2 are reproduced as under:
“ Brijendra Singh S/o Indrajeet is presently working as O.T. Assistant (w.e.f.
26.02.2020) in ESIC Hospital, Jajmau, Kanpur in pay level-3 as per 7" CPC
as per applicable Recruitment Rules for the post of O.T. Assistant in ESIC.
1. He filed an O.A. No. 553/2023 before Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad for higher
pay scale of Level-4 as per 7th CPC on basis of Head Quarter Order No. 111-
A-18/15/OT-CSR/Courtcase-2022-admin-2 dated 23.11.2023 from the date of
their promotion l.e. 26.02.2020 on the post of O.T. Assistant.
2. In his representation dated 09.01.2023, Brijendra Singh demanded higher
pay Level-4 on ground on of Head Quarter Order No. 111-A-18/15/OT-
CSR/Courtcase-2022-admin-2 dated 23.11.2023 as same has been given to
similarly placed employee in ESIC.
3. I have gone through the relevant records. Perusal reveals that the higher
pay Level-4 has been given only to the petitioner O.T. Assistant on the
specific directions of Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench New Delhi in verdict OA
No.4644/2015 Dated 04.08.2022.
Page 6 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

4. Recruitment regulation for the post of O.T. Assistant prescribes for the pay
Level-3 for the post. Therefore, Brijendra Singh is not eligible for higher pay
Level-4,
5. In view of the aforesaid, the representation dated 09.01.2023 of Brijendra
Singh lacks merit and cannot be acceded to.
The Speaking Order is issued in compliance of directions of Hon'ble CAT,
Allahabad Bench in OA No.553/2023 Order Dated 17.07.2023.”
13. In view of above, it is noted that recruitment regulations for the
post of OT Assistant prescribe Pay Level-3 for the post of OT Assistant
and not Pay Level-4. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for
fixation of their pay in Pay Level-4. Therefore, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order dated 11.09.2023 passed in respect of
applicants. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands
dismissed .
14.
Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
All the related MAs stand disposed of.

( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) ( Justice Rajiv Joshi )
Member (A) Member (J)
SahilSharma/-
Page 7 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA