CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which quashed the transfer orders issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the doctors serving with the ESIC medical college at KK Nagar in Chennai.
A division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and M Jothiraman passed the orders on Wednesday while allowing the petitions filed by the Director General of ESIC challenging the orders of the CAT passed on May 16, 2024.
The petitions pertain to transfer of 13 doctors serving with ESIC medical college at KK Nagar made in 2023 as part of the annual general transfer across the country.
The aggrieved doctors approached the CAT which refused to grant any relief. Subsequently, they filed petitions in the High Court which issued a direction to the grievance redressal committee of ESIC to consider the representations of the doctors and pass orders on merits.
The committee, in May, 2024 rejected the plea for retaining them in the same institution.
Challenging this order, they again approached CAT which quashed the transfer orders passed in May. Subsequently, the ESIC filed the present petition in the High Court seeking to set aside the CAT orders.
The division bench slammed the CAT for re-adjudicating on the matter already heard and ordered by the tribunal itself and the court.
“The directions of the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, are beyond the scope of the legal position settled by the Constitutional Courts.
Such directions issued in the matter of administrative transfers would undoubtedly result in prejudice to the interest of public administration; and the petitioners-ESIC may not be in a position to run an effective public administration,” the bench said in the order.
It remarked that once the Tribunal dismissed the original applications filed against the transfer orders and the High Court directed the grievance redressal committee to consider the representations.
The committee then considered and rejected the representations, thereafter entertaining an application against the very same transfer order, thus issuing several directions as stated above "is excess exercise." Therefore, the court is not inclined to approve the orders impugned.
The bench said the transfer order cannot be said to be infirm and was based on the organizational interest.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan, representing the ESI Corporation, submitted that the CAT could not re-adjudicate the matter as it was already considered and ordered.
He said the doctors had given an undertaking that they would abide by the conditions of appointment which included serving anywhere in the country.
Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the respondent doctors, stated that the doctors were appointed on institution basis and therefore, they were not liable to be transferred to any other place or post.
He also said the grievance redressal committee, while reconstructing the transfers based on the representation, failed to follow the procedures as per the transfer guidelines which elaborately provides procedures for annual general transfer.
The grievance redressal committee has not assigned any reason for rejecting the representations of the respondents, he noted.
The bench also rejected an additional prayer made by the doctors challenging the Clause 3 (d) of the appointment order, providing for transfer, saying that they have accepted the offer of appointment and served for nine years; now cannot turn around and challenge the terms of appointment regarding transfers.