Delhi High Court · 2025-12-20
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS. vs MOHIT KUMAR SHARMA
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-13280/2019 2025:DHC:11696-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS.
- Respondent
- MOHIT KUMAR SHARMA
Judgment text excerpt
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 13280/2019 & CM APPL. 54003/2019 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr.T. Singhdev, Mr.Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms.Yamini Singh, Mr.Tanishq Srivastava, Mr.Vedant Sood, Mr.Sourabh Kumar, Ms.Ramanpreet Kaur, Mr.Bhanu Gulati, Advs. versus MOHIT KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sourabh Ahuja, Mr.Keshav Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1215/2017, titled Mohit Kumar Sharma vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein and directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the respondent keeping in view the observations judgments of the Supreme Court in its judgments in K. Manjusree vs. State of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed WP(C) 13280/2019 Page 1 of 16 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:23.12.2025 17:41:22 Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512, and in Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11. 2. On such consideration, the petitioners rejected the case of the respondent again vide Order dated 20.03.2019. 3. Complaining that the same was not in true compliance with the Order of the learned Tribunal, the respondent filed a contempt petition, being CP No.191/2019. The petitioners again re-considered the case of the respondent, and rejected the same by an Order dated 18.09.2019, which was placed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 22.11.2019, found the same