TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ESIC Regulations Prevail Over DACP Scheme: Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Promotions</h1> <h3>The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Versus Union of India & Ors</h3> The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Versus Union of India & Ors - TMI Issues Involved1. Applicability of the DACP Scheme versus ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 for promotions.2. Statutory force and precedence of ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 over DACP Scheme.3. Validity of the concession made by the appellant's counsel before the CAT.4. The effect of recruitment advertisements mentioning DACP Scheme on actual promotion rules.5. Prior approval from the Central Government for ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Applicability of the DACP Scheme versus ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 for promotionsThe core issue is whether promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor should be governed by the DACP Scheme or the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015. The DACP Scheme, introduced by the Office Memorandum dated 29 October 2008, allows promotion after two years of service. However, the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, effective from 5 July 2015, mandate five years of service for such promotions. The Supreme Court held that the DACP Scheme does not apply to the contesting respondents as the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, having statutory effect, override the DACP Scheme.2. Statutory force and precedence of ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 over DACP SchemeThe ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 were issued under Section 97(1) and Section 17(3) of the ESI Act, giving them statutory force. The Supreme Court emphasized that regulations framed by statutory authorities have the force of law and take precedence over executive instructions like the DACP Scheme. The Court cited several precedents, including Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh, to affirm that statutory regulations override executive instructions.3. Validity of the concession made by the appellant's counsel before the CATThe appellant's counsel mistakenly conceded before the CAT that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 would not govern the matter. The Supreme Court clarified that such a concession does not amount to estoppel against statutory regulations. Citing cases like State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, the Court held that there can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having statutory effect.4. The effect of recruitment advertisements mentioning DACP Scheme on actual promotion rulesThe advertisements issued by the appellant mentioned the DACP Scheme, but the Supreme Court held that in the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter prevails. The Court referred to Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which established that erroneous advertisements do not create legal rights if they contradict statutory rules.5. Prior approval from the Central Government for ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015The contesting respondents argued that the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 were issued without the required prior approval from the Central Government as per Section 17(2)(a) of the ESI Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that the preamble to the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 stated that the regulations were made with the approval of the Central Government. Thus, the argument on the lack of prior approval was dismissed.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated 5 September 2019. The Court directed that the promotions of the contesting respondents should be governed by the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015, not the DACP Scheme. The revised seniority list of the Teaching Cadre at the appellant corporation should reflect this ruling. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
