The Supreme Court has asked the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to file an affidavit related to the bond tenure of its Junior Resident Doctors and its consequential impacts.
The vacation bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia has listed the matter for further hearing on July 22.
"Counsel appearing for the Employees State Insurance Corporation shall file a short affidavit on the submission that in 2020, the policy with respect to bond and tenure was changed and also its consequential impacts," the Court said.
The counsel for the ESIC has submitted a 5 year-term bond and the tenure was changed following a decision taken in November 2020.
The Court was hearing a plea seeking to direct the concerned authorities to declare that the petitioners, who are Junior Resident Doctors, are eligible "in-service" doctors of ESIC/ESIS for the purposes of inclusion in reservation for the PG courses.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Sachin Patil. The petition was moved by Junior Resident Doctors, including one Hemant Kumar Verma, who completed their MBBS courses from Institutions/ Hospitals run by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).
The petition stated that as per the prescribed regulations, the petitioners have to serve Hospitals of ESIC as in-service candidates for a period of five years, and for that, the petitioners have to give a UG bond to that effect the ESIC. Accordingly, the petitioners have executed bonds in favour of the respondent ESIC. They were appointed as Junior Residents in the ESIS/ ESIC institutions.
The petition submitted, "similarly the ESIC institutions recruit Insurance Medical Officers grade -II, (IMO-II) for the ESIC/ ESIS institutions."
It further submitted that qualifications, entitlements, duties and responsibilities, and the pay scale of junior resident doctors and IMO-II are the same. "As per the policy, IMO-II working in the ESIC institutions has been given 50 per cent reservation in PG medical seats in the ESIC Hospitals," it submitted.
The petition also submitted, "though the petitioners are similarly placed junior resident doctors like IMO-II, they are not held to be eligible for said 50 per cent quota of ESIC Hospitals and therefore they called the policy of ESIC as arbitrary and discriminatory as it violates the Article 14 of the Constitution."
"It is submitted that ESIC has been granting benefit of reservation to one set of in-service candidates and denying the said benefits to another set of in-service candidates when both are at par and similarly placed," the petitioners said.
Hence, they have claimed that they are eligible "in-service" doctors of ESIC/ESIS for the purposes of inclusion in reservation for PG courses and sought direction to the respondents ESIC and others to extend 50 per cent "in-service" doctors' reservation for PG courses to the Junior Resident Doctors serving in ESIC/ESIS institutions.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor