01Facts
Four Assistant Nursing Superintendents employed at ESIC Medical College & Hospital, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, challenged orders dated 24 June 2026 posting them to ESIC Medical College & Hospital, Joka, West Bengal.
p. 3They alleged that the transfers violated the Transfer Policy and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
p. 3At the final hearing, the Tribunal was informed that an Office Order dated 7 October 2026 had retained an applicant at Sanath Nagar; the order reproduced in the judgment names “Patur Anitha,” who is Applicant No. 4, although the Tribunal’s description identifies her as Applicant No. 3.
p. 3The Tribunal also recorded that the applicants’ representations were pending and that Applicants 1–3 had exercised options when options were called for in March.
pp. 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the applicants’ pending representations against their transfer postings should be considered and decided by the Competent Authority before the matter is adjudicated on its merits.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether the Competent Authority should pass a reasoned and speaking order on those representations within a specified period, with the matter potentially being placed before the National Litigation Committee.
p. 403Law Applied
The Tribunal did not decide the applicants’ substantive claims under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or the Transfer Policy, and it cited no statute or precedent as the basis for its order.
pp. 3–4Its operative direction was that the Competent Authority consider and dispose of the pending representations holistically, by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receiving a copy of the Tribunal’s order; if necessary, the matter could also be placed before the National Litigation Committee.
p. 404Reasoning
In light of the pending representations and the subsequent Office Order of 7 October 2026, the Tribunal directed the Competent Authority to consider the applicants’ cases first rather than determine the transfer challenge on its merits at that stage.
pp. 3–4It required a holistic, reasoned decision within 30 days and left open referral to the National Litigation Committee if necessary.
p. 4The Tribunal did not resolve the applicants’ constitutional or Transfer Policy allegations.
05Holding
The O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt of the Tribunal’s order; the matter could, if necessary, be placed before the National Litigation Committee.
p. 4Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
p. 4Original Court PDF
Mrs Nadagani SarithavsEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![CAT Gives ESIC 30 Days To Decide Four Hyderabad Assistant Nursing Superintendents’ Challenges To Joka Postings. Mrs Nadagani Saritha vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC). CAT - ['Hyderabad']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cat-gives-esic-30-days-to-decide-four-hyderabad-assistant-nursing-superintendents-challeng-747cdeb1831b4cc2ae527bb2fd8c82e4.webp)