In an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) related to a disposed of writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) seeking clarification of a judgment dated 06-08-2024 by this Court, a Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed the application, holding that if ESIC was aggrieved, it should have challenged the judgment and not sought an alteration in the same.
The writ petition arose from an application filed by the ESIC Medical Officers Association before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (CAT), regarding reimbursement of residential telephone/mobile/broadband charges for ESIC Medical Officers, as per the Office Memorandum dated 26-03-2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The Association was aggrieved by a Circular dated 28-05-2021, whereby the reimbursement benefit for medical officers on administrative posts was restricted, and those on non-administrative posts were excluded. By an order dated 18-09-2023, the CAT quashed the circular to that extent and directed ESIC to extend the reimbursement benefit to all medical officers as per the said Office Memorandum.
This order was challenged by ESIC in a writ petition, and this Court upheld CAT’s order holding that the Office Memorandum did not differentiate between the officers. The Court also directed ESIC to reimburse the telephone call charges to all ESIC medical officers, with interest at 6% per annum, from 26-03-2018 till the date of payment, within four weeks. Thereafter, the Association filed a contempt case alleging non-compliance with the judgment. ESIC contended that it had issued a circular to comply with the judgment and filed status reports from time to time in the contempt proceedings.
ESIC mentioned in the present application that it faced certain difficulties in implementing the said judgment, and that the Office Memorandum was formally adopted only on 25-09-2020, and that no employee was extended the benefit prior to the said date. ESIC sought clarification that it was liable to grant arrears of reimbursement of telephone charges, along with interest, to medical officers on non-administrative posts as per its circular dated 25-09-2020, as the memorandum was formally adopted on the said date, and not prior to that.
The Court stated that the issue was whether ESIC was liable to grant arrears of telephone reimbursement to medical officers on non-administrative posts from 26-03-2018, as directed by this Court, or only from 25-09-2020, i.e., the date on which ESIC claimed to have formally adopted the Office Memorandum.
The Court was not inclined to grant the clarification sought and found that the prayer, in substance, was an attempt to seek a modification of the judgment passed on 06-08-2024. The Court said that the plea that ESIC had adopted the memorandum belatedly, or that such belated adoption would restrict the entitlement of medical officers, could not be used to dilute or alter the direction issued earlier by this Court. It was said that if any consequence flows from ESIC’s own delayed adoption, it would not be a ground for this Court to rewrite the relief already granted.
The Court stated that the said judgment had adjudicated the controversy and was clear as to from which date the reimbursement with interest was payable. It was also stated that if ESIC was aggrieved, the proper remedy was to challenge the judgment, and not to seek a substantive alteration by way of the present application. Thus, the application was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Siddharth Dias (SC), Mr. Prakhar Kumar Shastri
For Respondents – None
