Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Samiksha Dhole and Rasika Pohare, filed writ petitions challenging the admission notice dated 28.6.2017 issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) for admission to ESIC medical colleges. The notice classified insured persons into three groups: Group I (5 years insurable service), Group II (4 years), and Group III (3 years) immediately prior to the crucial date of 1.1.2017. The petitioners argued that this classification was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They sought a declaration that petitioner No.2 (Raju Dhole) was an 'insured person' and that petitioner No.1 (Samiksha) should be issued a Ward of Insured Persons Certificate in Group I. The court examined the ESIC Act and Regulations, noting that the classification was based on the length of insurable service, which had a rational nexus with the object of giving preference to those who had contributed longer to the insurance scheme. The court found that the classification was reasonable and not discriminatory. The petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Classification of insured persons into Groups I, II, III based on 5/4/3 years of insurable service immediately prior to crucial date - The court held that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus with the object of giving preference to those with longer insurable service - Held that the classification is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the classification of insured persons into Groups I, II, and III based on 5/4/3 years of insurable service immediately prior to the crucial date is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Classification of insured persons based on length of insurable service is reasonable
- Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification
- ESIC Act and Regulations permit classification for admission to ESIC medical colleges
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 211
Writ Petition Nos. 4704/17 & 4761/17
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Arun D. Upadhye
Mr. T.D. Mandlekar, Mr. R.V. Malviya, Mr. U.J. Deshpande for petitioners; Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar for respondent no.1; Mrs. B.P. Maldhure for respondent nos.2 to 4
Samiksha d/o Raju Dhole & Raju s/o Tulshiram Dhole (WP 4704/17); Rasika Rajesh Pohare (WP 4761/17)
Union of India, Employees State Insurance Corporation, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging classification of insured persons in ESIC admission notice as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that petitioner No.2 is an 'insured person' and direction to issue Ward of Insured Persons Certificate to petitioner No.1 in Group I; quashing of admission notice and related provisions.
Filing Reason
Petitioners aggrieved by classification of insured persons into Groups I, II, III based on 5/4/3 years of insurable service immediately prior to crucial date.
Issues
Whether the classification of insured persons into Groups I, II, III based on 5/4/3 years of insurable service is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that classification is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the object of admission.
Respondents argued that classification is based on length of insurable service and is reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi
Classification of insured persons based on length of insurable service is reasonable and has rational nexus with the object of giving preference to those with longer service; not violative of Article 14.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners have prayed to hold and declare that the petitioner No.2 is an 'insured person' as defined under Clause 8 of Admission Notice dated 28.6.2017...
The classification is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus with the object of giving preference to those with longer insurable service.
Procedural History
Writ petitions filed directly before High Court challenging admission notice and classification. Rule issued and heard finally by consent.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948:
