AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25756 of 2026 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.25756 of 2026 was filed by the appellant-petitioner invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;
“i)Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the requisite Ward of Insured Person (IP) Certificate to the petitioner forthwith, enabling the petitioner to participate in the admission process for UG course in MBBS/ BDS/B.Sc. Nursing under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota for the academic year 2026–2027, in the light that the mother of the petitioner is an ‘Insured person’ under the definition of ESI Act;
ii) Issue a writ declaring that the petitioner's mother is an "Insured Person" within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the Ward of Insured Person (IP) Certificate and to be considered for admission under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota for the academic year 2026–2027”.
According to the appellant, his mother is duly registered as an Insured Person under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (‘ESI Act’ for short) on 14.07.2020, while working as an Upper Primary Teacher (Computer Science) at Auxilium Nava Jyoti School, wherein she continued till 31.03.2021. Thereafter, from 04.10.2023, she joined Vedavyasa Vidyalayam Senior Secondary and Sainik School, Sree Ramananda Nagar, Malaparamba P.O., Kozhikode District (‘Vedavyasa Vidyalayam’ for short) as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in Computer Science -Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The appellant states that the aforesaid educational institutions are establishments to which the provisions of the ESI Act have been extended under Section 1(5) of the said Act and are duly covered under the Employees State Insurance Scheme (‘ESI Scheme’ for short).
The appellant further pleads that the subsequent employer, that is, Vedavyasa Vidyalayam, delayed remittance of statutory Employees State Insurance contributions in respect of his mother. But the said delay was not attributable to the mother of the appellant. The contributions were eventually remitted under the very same Insurance Person (IP) number, thereby evidencing the continuity of the coverage of the appellant’s mother under the ESI Scheme. The mother of the appellant has continued to remain an insured person as defined under Section 2(14) of the ESI Act. The appellant, who has not attained the age of 21 years, falls within the definition of ‘family’ under Section 2(11) of the ESI Act and is therefore entitled to all consequential benefits available to the dependent ward of an insured person under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder.
The appellant had appeared for the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2025 and scored 545 out of 720, thereby becoming eligible to participate in the admission for medical courses for the academic year 2026-2027. However, the application was mechanically rejected through the Employees State Insurance Corporation (‘ESI Corporation’ for short) online portal, stating the reason that the appellant’s mother was not an insured person as on the cut-off date of 30.09.2025, as mentioned in clause 4.9.1 of Ext.P5 admission notice. Contending that the appellant’s mother, having been continuously employed in the establishments covered under the ESI Act, the appellant squarely satisfied the statutory definitions and the eligibility criteria contained in Clause 4.9.1 of Ext.P5 admission notice, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition. In the writ petition, it is further contended by the appellant that Clause 4.9.1 of Ext.P5 admission notice does not prescribe actual remittance of contributions by the employer as an independent condition of eligibility. It is pleaded that since the admission process for the academic year 2026-2027 has reached its final stage, unless urgent directions are issued to the respondents to issue the Ward of Insured Person certificate and permit the appellant to participate in the allotment process, he will suffer irreparable prejudice by permanently losing the opportunity to compete for admission under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota.
In the writ petition, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit dated 05.08.2026 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of that counter affidavit, which are relevant for the purpose of understanding the contention of respondents 1 to 3, read thus;
“2.The above Writ Petition contains incorrect and misleading averments as well as unsustainable contentions. Hence it has become necessary to file this counter affidavit to controvert the same and to state the relevant facts correctly for the effective adjudication of the above case. All the averments and allegations made in the above Writ Petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder, are denied by these respondents.
3.At the outset, it is submitted that the above Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The above Writ Petition has been filed by Sri.Karthik, son of Smt.Smitha.V.K who is claimed to be an Insured Person within the meaning of the provisions of ESI Act for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the requisite Ward of Insured Person (IP) Certificate to the petitioner forthwith enabling the petitioner to participate in the admission process for UG Course in MBBS/BDS/B.Sc Nursing under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota for the academic year 2026-2027 in the light of that mother of the petitioner is an insured person under the definition of the ESI Act and to issue a writ declaring that petitioner’s mother is an insured person within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the ESI Act and consequently declaring that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of Ward of Insured Person Certificate (IP) and to considered for admission under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota for the academic year 2026-2027. It is submitted that the petitioner’s mother is not an insured person and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get the aforesaid reliefs prayed for. Moreover the petitioner has made willful suppression and distortion of material facts and has made deliberate misrepresentation to mislead this Hon’ble Court to get suitable relief and hence the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground itself.
4.Moreover it is relevant to notice that the above Writ Petition filed by the son of an Insured Person praying for the aforesaid declaration that petitioner’s mother is an Insured Person is not maintainable as the petitioner is not competent to seek such declaration. His mother who is claimed to be insured person is the only competent person to seek such prayers and hence ought to have filed Writ Petition for the aforesaid declaration sought for and at least she ought to have joined as the co-petitioner. Hence the petitioner has no locus standi to file the above Writ Petition. Hence in the absence of the mother who is claimed to be an insured person, the above Writ Petition filed by her son, praying for the aforesaid relief is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that short ground.
5.According to the petitioner, he is the son of Smt.Smitha.V having insurance number 7204392416 and was registered under ESI scheme on 14.07.2020 with date of appointment as 01.06.2020 by M/s.Auxilium Nava Jyothi School, Kunnamangalam, Code No.72000176090001303. The contribution in respect of the above insured woman is seen remitted by M/s.Auxilium Nava Jyothi School, only upto April 2021. As per the contribution filed by the employer, the above insured person Smt.Smitha V left service in May 2021. The last working day of the above employee at that school was 30.04.2021.
6.Later she was registered under ESI scheme by M/s.Vedavyasa Vidyalayam, Malaparamba, Kozhikode, under the 5th respondent, with Code No. 72000171680001303 and date of appointment as 02.11.2025. This is evident from e-Pehchan Card in respect of the above employee Smitha K.V., a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). It is submitted that the above e-Pehchan Card was generated by the employer on the basis of the information furnished by him in the ESIC website. Hence it is established that she was an employee of the above institution and definitely she is not an Insured Person prior to 01/11/25. But the petitioner has wilfully suppressed this important aspect and made wrongful and misleading statements to the contrary in the above writ petition. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that his mother was employed in the 5th respondent school since 2023 that from 4/10/23 the petitioner’s mother joined in the 5th respondent school and has been serving in the institution is wrong and misleading. In the above circumstance the Ext.P3 experience certificate issued by the manager that she was employed as PGT on temporary basis is false and cannot be acted upon. The respondent have reasons to believe that Ext.P3 certificate is fabricated for the purpose of this case. In the above circumstances Hence the above Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of willful suppression and distortion of material facts and for making willful misrepresentation for getting ineligible benefit.
7.In this context it is relevant to notice that it is not stated in the above Writ Petition that his mother comes within the ceiling limit of the salary (that is Rs.21,000/- per month) and was an employee as provided under Sec.2 (9) of the ESI Act. It is seen that the contribution in respect of Smt. Smitha V was paid by M/s. Vedavyasa Vidyalayam very belatedly from November 2025 onwards. Hence the above employee was not an insured person under ESI Scheme as on 30.09.2025, the cutoff date prescribed under the Annexure A5 Admission notice for availing the above benefit. It is submitted that contributions are payable during the contribution period for getting the benefits during the benefit period. The benefit period corresponding to the contribution period from October 2020 to March 2021 is July 2021 to December 2021. The Regulation 4 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation, 1950 provides the contribution and benefit period. It stipulates that contribution period and the corresponding benefit period shall be as under.
Contribution period Corresponding benefit period 1st April to 30th September 1st January of the year following to 30th June 1st October to 31st March of the year following. 1st July to 31st December It is submitted that accordingly, for the contribution period from April to September 2025, the corresponding benefit period is January 2026 to June 2026, which is relevant in this case. But the petitioner’s mother has not paid any contribution during the above contribution period, the last date of which is the cutoff date for determining whether an employee is an insured person or not i.e. 30-9-2025. Hence the petitioner’s mother was not an insured person under the ESI scheme on 30.09.2025 as per Section 2(14) of the ESI Act, 1948. Consequently the petitioner’s mother is not an insured person and entitled for any benefits under the ESI Act including of the benefit of admission entitled to a ward of Insured Person, as per the Annexure A5 notification”.
To the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 07.08.2026, producing therewith Exts.P6 to P8 documents. Thereafter, along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, the appellant produced Ext.P9 and P10 documents in the writ petition.
After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2026, dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 9 to 13 and the subsequent paragraphs of that judgment read thus ;
“9.The main point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could be issued with a certificate certifying him as ‘a ward of an insured person’. The ESI Corporation is a statutory body, established under the ESI Act. The Central Government had approved an admission policy for MBBS and BDS in ESIC Medical Education Institutions. As per the policy, an insured person’s quota is created and wards of such insured persons, who meet the eligibility criteria and who have qualified in the NEET UG, will be eligible to claim admission under such a quota.
10.The term 'insured person' is defined in section 2(14) of the ESI Act to mean a person who is or was an employee, in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under the Act and who is, by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by the Act. Interpreting the said provision, a learned single Judge of this Court had in, Hari R. Nair's case (supra) observed that the ESI Corporation cannot deny an otherwise eligible insured person, a certificate due to the delay in filing returns or payment of contribution by the employer.
11.Though strong reliance was placed by the petitioner on the above judgment, it needs to be mentioned that there is a factual difference with the instant case. The petitioner's mother had joined the Auxilium Nava Jyoti School in 2020 and continued there till 31.03.2021. Her employment with the said school did not continue thereafter and consequently she was not covered by the insurance scheme. Though petitioner claims that his mother was employed subsequently in 2023 by the fifth respondent, there are no materials available to indicate the date of appointment or even that petitioner's mother was appointed as a teacher. The primary document that could have proved her appointment as well as its date, is the order of appointment. An experience certificate produced by the petitioner, the veracity of which is disputed by the respondents, cannot be equated with an appointment order. Merely because there could have been a possibility of some engagement occasionally, the same cannot be regarded as an appointment for the purpose of coverage under the ESI Act.
12.Moreover, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner's mother had been appointed as a teacher either temporary or permanent in the fifth respondent's school, this Court cannot rely upon the vague assertion of the petitioner that his mother was employed from 2023 onwards. In this context it needs to be mentioned that the fifth respondent was unable to assure the court that there was a default on their part for payment of employer or employee contribution or that any deduction was made from the payments made to the petitioner's mother. In the decision in Hari R. Nair's case (supra), there was a failure on the part of the employer to remit the contribution, despite deduction, and therefore the court came to the conclusion that since it was not the fault on the part of the employee, the benefit due as a ward of insured person cannot be denied.
13.As noted earlier, the date of appointment of petitioner's mother in the fifth respondent's school is under a shadow of doubt. There are no reliable materials to come to the conclusion as to the said date and hence the petitioner's mother cannot be regarded as an insured person on 30.09.2025, which is the cut off date for the purpose of admission to the professional courses under the category of ‘ward of an insured person’ for 2026-27. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a ward of an insured person as on 30.09.2025. Hence the impugned order does not warrant any interference Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.
On 11.09.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, this Court directed the appellant to file an application to implead the Manager of Vedavyasa Vidyalayam as an additional respondent in the writ appeal. Since the writ petition was disposed of without a counter affidavit of the 5th respondent Headmaster, this Court directed the said respondent or the Manager of the School, to place on record a counter affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances. Thereafter, on 14.09.2026, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2026 filed by the appellant, the Manager of Vedavyasa Vidyalayam was impleaded as additional 6th respondent.
The additional 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 15.09.2026 in the writ appeal. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of the counter affidavit read thus;
“2.M/S Vedavyasa Vidyalayam Senior Secondary and Sainik School Kozhikode is a CBSE Affiliated Institution owned by the society “Bharathiya Vidya Niketan” registered under the TC Act 12 of 1955 and under Registration No. 1119/1979. The 5th and 6th respondents are the employees working under the designation of Principal and the Manager respectively, and as appointed by the Management Committee of the above Vidyalayam.
3.The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein by seeking relief mainly including:
a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the requisite ward of Insured Persons Certificate to the petitioner forthwith, enabling the petitioner to participate in the admission process for UG Course in MBBS/BDS/BSC-Nursing under the Wards of Insured Persons Quota for the academic year 2026-27, in the light that the mother of the petitioner is an insured person under the definition of EST Act.
b. Issue a Writ declaring that the petitioner’s mother is an insured person within the meaning of section 2(14) of the ESI Act,1948 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the ward of insured person certificate and to be considered for under the ward of insured person quota for the academic year 2026-27.
4.This Respondent admits the issuance of Exhibit P3 Certificate as well as its correctness. It is submitted that the appellant’s mother was appointed as a permanent employee by the Management Committee, effective from 02/11/2025. Accordingly, she was enrolled with the ESI Corporation and contribution shown as payable in the ESI portal was being paid until she resigned from the institution in May 2026.
5.In the above regard, it is submitted that the employer is permitted to pay the ESI contribution only through the ESI maintained portal and for the employees recognized by them and on corresponding calculations on payable amounts, specifically shown in the portal. This respondent would deduct the employee contribution based on such details and pay the same through such portal.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the subject matter case read with section 2(14) of ESI Act, it is submitted that the disputes include the status of the appellant’s mother as an employee in this respondent’s employer prior to 02/11/2025 and payability of ESI contribution for her during that period. Under section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the above said disputes lies with “Insurance Court” constituted as per the above statute. The appellant cannot bypass the above jurisdictional aspect.
7.However, this respondent has no objection in this Hon’ble court determining the eligibility of the appellant to receive “Ward of Insurance Person Certificate” for the period prior to 02.11.2025, without prejudice to the employer’s right to defend the status as well as the payability of contribution, if any, for the period prior to 02.11.2025 and in accordance with law”.
Heard Sri.S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri. T. V. Ajayakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation, Sri M.K. Sumod, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and also the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that while working as a Computer Teacher in the U.P. Section in Auxilium Navajyothi School, Kunnamangalam, the mother of the appellant was registered with the ESI Corporation on 14.07.2020. Though she discontinued from that school on 31.03.2021, she joined Vedavyasa Vidyalayam on 04.10.2023. Exts.P9 and P10, account statements maintained in HDFC Bank by the mother of the appellant, to which the salary from Vedavyasa Vidyalayam was credited, would show that she had been receiving salary in that account from 02.08.2024 onwards. Till 02.08.2024, the salary was paid to the mother of the appellant from Vedavyasa Vidyalayam in cash. The date of appointment shown as 02.11.2025 in Ext.P4 e-pehchan card was due to the delay committed by the additional 6th respondent in paying the contribution to the ESI Corporation. In fact, there was no appointment order issued on 02.11.2025 or on any other date. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional 6th respondent, the contents of Ext.P3 experience certificate to the effect that the mother of the appellant was appointed in Vedavyasa Vidyalayam on 04.10.2023 is admitted. Even if the mother of the appellant was a temporary teacher in Vedavyasa Vidyalayam as on the relevant date, that is, 30.09.2025, mentioned in Ext.P5 admission notice dated 30.04.2026, she will fall under the definition of insured person as defined under Section 2(14) of the ESI Act. The learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate Exts. P9 and P10 documents produced by the appellant pertaining to the salary deposited in the account of his mother from Vedavyasa Vidyalayam. So also, the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the law laid down by this Court in Hari R.Nair v. The Director General, ESI Corporation [2018 SCC Online Ker 2537].
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation argued that the appellant did not challenge the order of rejection of his application and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the mother of the appellant is a necessary party to the writ petition since it is claiming her as the insured person; the appellant filed the writ petition. It is also argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the appellant had not produced any appointment order pertaining to his mother, though he claims that his mother was appointed in Vedavyasa Vidyalayam on 04.10.2023. By pointing out various provisions in the ESI Act and Regulation 4 of ESI (General) Regulations, 1950, the learned Standing Counsel argued that admittedly the employer did not make any contribution towards the mother of the appellant to ESI Corporation till 02.11.2025, and, therefore, she will not fall under the definition of insured person as on 30.09.2025, the cut-off date mentioned in Ext.P5 admission notice. In support of his arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Geetha N v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [2016 (5) KHC 148].
The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 addressed arguments supporting the appellant.
The only point to be considered in this writ appeal is whether the appellant has made out any sufficient ground to interfere with the finding of the Learned Single Judge that as on the cut-off date mentioned in Ext.P5 admission notice, the appellant cannot claim the status of Ward of Insured Person for the purpose of availing benefit under seats allocated for wards of insured persons?
We have perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the rival arguments addressed at the Bar. Before entering into the merits of the arguments addressed on either side, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under the ESI Act and ESI Regulations, 1950 and the relevant clauses in Ext.P5 admission notice, relied on by both sides.
Sections 2(14), 46 and 49 of the ESI Act read thus;
2. Definitions.-
xxx xxx xxx
(14)“insured person” means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Act and who is, by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act;
xxx xxx xxx
46.Benefits.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the insured persons, their dependants or the persons hereinaf-ter mentioned, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the follow-ing benefits, namely:
(a)periodical payments to any insured person in case of his sickness certified by a duly appointed medical practitioner or by any other person possessing such qualifications and experience as the Corporation may, by regulations, specify in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as sickness benefit);
(b)periodical payments to an insured woman in case of confine-ment or mis-carriage or sickness arising out of pregnancy, con-finement, premature birth of child or miscarriage, such woman being certified to be eligible for such payments by an authority specified in this behalf by the regulations (hereinafter referred to as maternity benefit);
(c)periodical payments to an insured person suffering from disa-blement as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act and certified to be eligible for such payments by an authority specified in this behalf by the regula-tions (hereinafter referred to as disablement benefit);
(d)periodical payments to such dependants of an insured person who dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act, as are entitled to compensation under this Act (hereinafter referred to as dependants' benefit);
(e)medical treatment for and attendance on insured persons (hereinafter referred to as medical benefit); and
(f)payment to the eldest surviving member of the family of an insured person who has died, towards the expenditure on the funeral of the deceased insured person, or, where the insured person did not have a family or was not living with his family at the time of his death, to the person who actually incurs the expenditure on the funeral of the deceased insured person (to be known as funeral expenses):
Provided that the amount of such payment shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government and the claim for such payment shall be made within three months of the death of the insured person or within such extended period as the Corporation or any officer or authority authorised by it in this behalf may allow.
(2)The Corporation may, at the request of the appropriate Gov-ernment, and subject to such conditions as may be laid down in the regulations, extend the medical benefits to the family of an insured person.
xxx xxx xxx
49.Sickness benefit.- The qualification of a person to claim sickness benefit, the conditions subject to which such benefit may be given, the rates and period thereof shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Regulation 4 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 reads thus:
“4.Contribution and Benefit Periods.- Contribution periods and the corresponding benefit periods shall be as under:-
Contribution period Corresponding benefit period 1st April to 30th September 1st January of the year following to 30th June 1st October to 31st March of the year following 1st July to 31st December Provided that in the case of a person who becomes an employee within the meaning of the Act for the first time, the first contribution period shall commence from the date of such employment in the contribution period current on that day and the corresponding benefit period for him shall commence on the expiry of the period of nine months from the date of such employment”.
Clauses 4.7 to 4.9 of Ext.P5 admission notice read thus:
“4.7Insured person for the purpose of availing benefit under 'Seats allocated for ward of Insured Person (IP)' - Ref Para (8) of Annexure - 1
4.8'Ward of Insured Person’ for the purpose of availing benefit under 'Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)' - Ref Para (9) of Annexure - 1
4.9The critical cut-off date for determining:
4.9.1Eligibility of Insured person for availing benefit under the 'Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)' for his /her child/children would be 30th September 2025, i.e. only a person who is 'Insured Person' as per the Act, as on 30.09.2025 would be eligible for availing benefit under the 'Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)' for his/ her child/children.
4.9.2The age of dependent male 'Ward of IP' for eligibility under the 'Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)' should not be more than 21 years as on the last date of submission of application form for NEET-UG 2026 i.e. 08.03.2026.
The said date would not apply to dependent unmarried female 'Ward of IP' as per provisions of the ESI Act, 1948.
Clauses 8 and 9 of Annexure I admission policy attached with Ext.P5 admission notice produced as Ext.R1(b) by the 1st respondent read thus;
“8.Insured person: For availing the benefit of MBBS/BDS seats for his/her wards shall be as defined under Section (2), subsection (14) of the ESI Act, 1948’, as on the last day of the contribution period immediately preceding the date of notification for NEET-UG for the relevant year. Definition under Section (2), subsection (14) of the ESI Act, 1948 is reproduced as under;
‘Insured person’ means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under this Act and who is by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided under this Act. Note: The critical date for eligibility under ‘Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)’ for 2026-27 would be 30.09.2025, i.e. only a person who is ‘Insured Person’ as per the Act, as on 30.09.2025 would be eligible for availing benefit under the ‘Seats allocated for wards of insured persons (IPs)’ for his/her child/children.
9.'Ward of Insured Person’ will be children/child of an Insured person who are/is eligible for benefit under the ESI Act as on the last date of submission of application form for NEET- UG for the relevant year.
Note: The critical date for determining age of the Ward of the IP as per Section 2(11)(iii) of the ESI Act, 1948, for the benefit of admission to MBBS/BDS course under Insured Person Quota, would be last date of submission of application form for NEET- UG for the relevant year”.
19.The entitlement claimed by the appellant for the seats allocated for the Ward of Insured Persons is based on Ext.P5 admission notice coupled with the relevant provisions under the ESI Act. When going through Clause 4.9.1 of Ext.P5, it is clear that the critical cut-off date for determining eligibility was 30.09.2025. As per Clause 4.7 of Ext.P5, the ‘Insured Person’ for the purpose of availing benefit under seats allocated for the ward of the Insured Person, should be as stated in Annexure 1, which was produced as Ext.R1(b) by the 1st respondent. As per Clause 8 of Annexure I in Ext.R1(b), Insured Person means a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable under the ESI Act and who is by reason thereof entitled to any of the benefits provided under the ESI Act. The benefits that can be claimed by the mother of the appellant under the ESI Act, as extracted above, are under Section 46 read with Section 49 of the said Act. But the crucial point is whether, as on 30.09.2025, the mother of the appellant can be treated as an Insured Person so that the appellant can claim the benefit of a ward of an Insured Person.
Regulation 4 of the ESI Regulations, 1950, as extracted above, states about the contribution periods and the corresponding benefit periods. In the instant case, the mother of the appellant, though registered with the ESI Corporation as early as 14.07.2020, while she was working in Auxilium Navajyothi School, Kunnamangalam, she discontinued that school on 31.03.2021. Though Ext.P3 experience certificate issued from Vedavyasa Vidyalayam states that the mother of the appellant joined the school on 04.10.2023, Ext.P4 shows her date of appointment as 02.11.2025. The appellant has no case that any contribution was paid to the ESI Corporation prior to 02.11.2025 from Vedavyasa Vidyalayam on his mother’s account. Therefore, as per Regulation 4 of the ESI Regulations, 1950, as on 30.09.2025, she cannot be treated as a beneficiary of the ESI Act. Hence, on the strength of Ext.P3 experience certificate and Exts.P9 and P10 account statements, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of ward of an insured person as on the aforesaid cut-off date mentioned in Ext.P5 admission notice.
It is appropriate to note at this juncture that in Geetha N [2016 (5) KHC 148], a learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering a similar claim raised by the petitioners in that writ petition, held thus;
“11.On a reading of paragraph 8 of Ext. P1, it is clear that the insured person shall be an 'employee' as defined in the ESI Act and should have been in continuous insurable employment for a minimum period of five years as on 1st January of the year of admission and should have paid at least 78 days of contribution in each Contribution Period, during this five year period. The 5 year period would be counted from the date of entry into the ESI Scheme. That apart, it is also stipulated that, in case there is default or delay on the part of the employer in getting itself or the concerned employee covered under the Scheme, the ESIC will not be responsible for the said default or delay. Any period prior to the date of entry described above would not be counted towards the 5 year period of eligibility for the purpose of availing benefit of Insured Persons Quota, is the further stipulation.
12.On a reading of paragraph 8, it would indicate that what is material is not the 5 year employment of the 1st petitioner, but the date of enrolment in the Scheme is that what matters for securing admission in the Quota. The said stipulation is a mandatory requirement which is clear from the imperative condition that, while counting 5 year period as on 1st January of year of admission, the employee should have at least 78 days of contribution in each Contribution Period during the 5 year period. It is also clear from the stipulations that the 5 year period would be counted from the date of entry into the ESI Scheme. Admittedly, 1st petitioner was registered only on 03.08.2012 and that too, as per Ext. R1(a) interim order passed by this Court. The contribution prior to the said period was paid after the judgment was rendered by this Court on 18.07.2014. The said aspects are virtually admitted by the petitioners. Therefore, it can be seen that 1st petitioner did not have qualifying service of 5 years from the date of enrolment in the Scheme, the same being 03.08.2012, in order to secure admission in the quota in question for the academic year 2016-17. True, it is a hard case where the employer was contesting the litigations with respect to the liability of the employer to pay contribution under the ESI Act. However, it is clearly stated in the counter - affidavit that the representatives of the employees were impleaded in the proceedings before the Employees' Insurance Court in representative capacity in terms of the directives contained in the judgment in the 'FACT case' (supra). Therefore, it cannot be heard to say that 1st petitioner did not have any opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Employees' Insurance Court and later before this Court.
13.That apart, the terms and conditions in Ext. P1 were very well known to the 1st petitioner also. Merely because the contribution was paid in lump after the judgment of this Court, admittedly, the registration of the petitioner into the scheme is only on 03.08.2012. What is material is the registration and the 5 year period thereafter. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and reckoning the provisions contained under Ext. P1 Admission Policy, there is no doubt for me, to arrive at a definite conclusion that 1st petitioner did not have the qualifying service in order to secure admission for the 2nd petitioner under the quota "Ward of Insured Person". Moreover, the contributions paid after the judgment rendered by this Court for the period prior to 2012, will not inure to the benefit of the 1st petitioner to seek admission to her ward to the medical course for the quota earmarked, but the same may only inure to the other ESI benefits provided to the 1st petitioner under the ESI Act”.
Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Hari R. Nair [2018 SCC Online Ker 2537], the facts of the said case would show that the beneficiary therein was registered with the ESI Corporation as on the relevant date and there was failure on the part of the employer to remit the contribution, which was paid in lump sum in a later period. In the instant case, as already noted, the date of appointment of the mother of the appellant in Vedavyasa Vidyalayam itself is shown as 02.11.2025 in Ext. P4 e-pehchan card. Therefore, the judgment in Hari R. Nair [2018 SCC Online Ker 2537] is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Though the learned Senior counsel for the appellant raised contention regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of non-challenging of the order of rejection of his application to grant the benefit of ward of insured person, we find no merit in that contention for the simple reason that no such order was admittedly served on the appellant, except instantaneous display of such a message on the website. So also, as far as the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation regarding the non-impleadment of the mother of the appellant as a party to the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the mother of the appellant ought to have been made a party to the writ petition as a proper party. But she cannot be termed as a necessary party to the writ petition, so as to hold the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. However, we are not delving much into those aspects in this judgment for the reason that, even otherwise, we have already found that the writ petition holds no merit as rightly found by the learned Single Judge.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to hold that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is suffering from any illegality or perversity so as to interfere with the same by exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.