Facts
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) restricted telephone/mobile reimbursement benefits to medical officers on administrative posts via a circular dated 28.05.2021
Source reference: p. 2The Respondent Association challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which quashed the restriction and directed reimbursement for all medical officers based on a Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum (OM) dated 26.03.2018
Source reference: p. 3On 06.08.2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed ESIC’s writ petition, upholding the CAT order and directing ESIC to pay arrears with 6% interest from 26.03.2018
Source reference: p. 3ESIC subsequently filed the present application (CM APPL. 23409/2026) seeking "clarification," arguing that since they only formally adopted the OM on 25.09.2020, arrears should only be payable from that date onwards
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the direction to pay arrears from 26.03.2018 requires clarification or modification to account for ESIC’s formal adoption date of the OM (25.09.2020)
Source reference: p. 6, para. 172. Whether the administrative difficulty and internal disparity caused by the judgment constitute valid grounds for modifying a final judicial direction
Source reference: p. 7, para. 22Law Applied
The Court applied the principle of finality of judgments and the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Source reference: p. 4Statement on the doctrine that a "clarification" application cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to seek a substantive modification of a final order
Source reference: p. 7, para. 19; p. 8, para. 24The court maintained that the statutory/administrative benefits under the Ministry of Finance OM (26.03.2018) apply uniformly without the distinction created by ESIC's internal delayed adoption
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicant, under the guise of "clarification," was effectively seeking a substantive modification of the judgment dated 06.08.2024
Source reference: p. 7, para. 19The court reasoned that it had already considered the controversy and issued a categorical direction for interest and arrears to run from 26.03.2018
Source reference: p. 7, para. 20The Court rejected ESIC's argument that its internal delay in adopting the OM (until 25.09.2020) should curtail the entitlements of the medical officers, ruling that ESIC’s own administrative oversight or "belated adoption" cannot dilute the relief already granted
Source reference: p. 7, para. 21-22The court emphasized that any alleged "anomaly" created between different classes of ESIC employees due to this judgment does not furnish a legal ground to rewrite or postpone a final judicial decree
Source reference: p. 8, para. 22Holding
The Court dismissed the application, holding that the judgment dated 06.08.2024 had finally adjudicated the controversy and the prayer for clarification was a veiled attempt to seek modification without following the proper appellate remedy
The original direction stands: ESIC remains liable to grant arrears and 6% interest to all medical officers effective from 26.03.2018
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Original Court PDF
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through Its Director GeneralvsEsic Medical Officers Association (Regd.) Through Its Secretary Dr Md Mozaffar Uddin & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in