Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Central Administrative Tribunal vs The Union Of India on 4 October, 2013
1 OA No.246/2012 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO:-246/2012 Dated this Friday the 04th day of October, 2013 CORAM:- HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE SMT. CHAMELI MAJUMDAR, MEMBER (J) National Institute of Virology Employees Association (NIVEA), Regd. Office at 20-A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Post Box No.11, Pune 411 001 Through its President Shri Hemant Kalu Kengale aged about 44 years Residing at Sector 21, Scheme No.10 Building No.36/6, Yamuna Nagar, Nigadi, Pune 410 044 ... Applicant (By Advocate Shri P.J.Prasadrao) Versus 1. The Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, Moulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 011 2. The Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, V Ramalingaswami Bhavan, Ansari Nagar, Post Box No.4911 New Delhi 110 029 3. National Institute of Virology 20-A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Post Box No.11, Pune 411 001 ....Respondents (By Advocate Shri S.Narayanan) 2 OA No.246/2012 OR D ER -ORAL Per : Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A)
Heard both the learned counsel. This matter has a short compass. National Institute of Virology is an organization under respondent No.2 i.e. Director General, ICMR. The first applicant is NIV Employees Association. It is claimed by the applicant that throughout the country, there are 26 institutes or centres working under ICMR, which deal with the research in different types of diseases and National Institute of Virology (in short NIV) is one such institute. The claim of the applicant is that some staff of some of these units is are given PCA (Patient Care Allowance). Hence, all the staff of NIV is also entitled for the same.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has handed over a copy to the Bench of letter dated 16.10.2006 written from the Office of DG, ICMR to Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which states that 16 out of these 26 centres have to necessarily provide Patient Care. In some of these units, there has been a practice of Appointing Scrutiny Committee by DG, ICMR, which will examine, who is the staff 3 OA No.246/2012 involved in actual Patient Care and to grant PCA to such staff. This letter seems to recommend the inclusion of some more staff, but the learned counsel for the applicant fails to enlighten us about anything more than it, such as criteria for giving PCA, norms, rules if any, etc.
3. The applicant have already approached this Tribunal earlier in OA No.400 of 2007 and a direction was given to the respondent ICMR of that OA on 18.04.2011 asking them to take a view on the request of the applicants for grant of PCA as per rules within a period of three months and pass appropriate orders. The respondent No.2, i.e. DG, ICMR has accordingly considered the whole issue and issued a detailed order dated 25.11.2011, which is impugned. In the last para of the said order, it is stated that Since Ministry of Finance has not agreed to grant PCA to fresh employees because of the VI-CPC recommendations and in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, ICMR regrets its liability to grant PCA till it is approved by the Ministry of Health/Ministry of Finance.
4. Thus, though some employees out of said 26 4 OA No.246/2012 institutes may have been given PCA earlier and the practice may have been continued in their respect, it is not agreed by ICMR to grant PCA in any fresh cases, in view of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which has suggested the alternative of Health Insurance. In view of this, ICMR cannot grant PCA.
5. The applicant has not made any reference to this contentions of the respondents in the OA. After arguing for a short while, his counsel prays for direction to the second respondent to finalize the considerations regarding implementation of Health Insurance Scheme, if PCA cannot be granted to newer applicants.
6. From the letter dated 16.10.2006 above, it is clear that each and every staff and every one of the 26 Units as referred to in the said letter, which includes NIV, cannot be held as eligible for PCA. Inference can be drawn from the said letter dated 16.10.2006 that some staff of NIV, Pune might have been getting PCA earlier. The pertinent sentence is as follows the revised submitted includes RMRIMS, Patna, RMRC, 5 OA No.246/2012 Jabalpur and NIRRH, Mumbai. There is increase of posts in DMRC, Jodhpur, NICED, Kolkatta and RMRC, Dibrugarh and small deduction in posts in some other Institutes/Centres like NIV, Pune, TRC, Chennai etc.
7. If that be so, then such staff in NIV were surely not given PCA without undertaking the exercise of Scrutiny Committee to decide as to which staff should be given PCA. The OA does not give any information on this point either. It seems to have been filed only on the ground that since some persons are getting PCA, so everyone should get it.
8. In view of the above, it is only possible at this stage to give a suitable directions to respondent No.2.
9. We, therefore, direct the respondent No.2 to examine the issue of grant of PCA to the applicant namely NIV Employees Association or in the alternative, grant of Health Insurance as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission. The respondent No.2 should examine all the necessary aspects and formulate his own opinion and if 6 OA No.246/2012 necessary, make a suitable recommendations to respondent No.1, who should take a final decision after considering all aspects. We consider it fit to allow a time of eight months between the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to complete the entire exercise.
10. The Original Application is disposed of with the above directions.
(Smt. Chameli Majumdar) (Smt. Leena Mehendale) Member (J) Member (A) km*