Kerala High Court
Ajayakumar. T vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2007
Author: A.K.Basheer
Bench: A.K.Basheer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22729 of 2005(E)
1. AJAYAKUMAR. T., AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. M.G. HARI, AGED 39, S/O. E.M. GOPALAN,
3. CHANDRASEKHAR YADEV, AGED 31,
4. DEEPAK SAMUEL, AGED 22 YEARS,
5. SINDHU N.R.,AGED 28,D/O.N.G.RAMACHANDRAN
6. M.D. NASEEMUDDIN, AGED 31 YEARS,
7. AJITH SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS,
8. ROHITASH MEENA, S/O. PRIYATILAL MEENA,
9. N. YADHAIA, S/O. NO. POCHAIAH,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE P. THOMAS, CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :02/03/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 22729 OF 2005
---------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are Combatised group 'C' and 'D' employees (non- ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force. They are admittedly working in the hospital at the Group centre of the Force at Pallipuram in Trivandrum in various categories like Pharmacist, Ward Boy, Safai Karamchari, Hospital cook etc. Their grievance is that they are being denied Hospital Patient Care Allowance, which they are entitled to get. It is not in dispute that the Government of India had sanctioned the above allowance to group 'C' and ,D' (non ministerial) Employees excluding Staff Nurses as revealed from Ext.P1 order dated January 25, 1988. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to Ext.P1 order all Government hospital employees are being granted the above allowance.
2. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, I do not deem it necessary to refer to or deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioners in support of their plea for grant of the allowance in question. In the counter affidavit it is conceded that the issue has been finally settled in favour of Group C and D employees like the petitioners by virtue of the pronouncements of various High Courts in the country. Ultimately their Lordships of the Supreme WPC NO. 22729 Page numbers Court had confirmed the orders passed by the various High Courts and the Special Leave Petition (SLP(c) No. 1093/95) filed by the establishment was dismissed. Thereafter, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, had ordered payment of the allowance to all civilian (non-combatised) eligible Hospital staff and also to Combatised staff, who were parties to the cases filed before various High Courts. The allowance is being paid to all the eligible groups ever since. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of the above order issued by the Government and that the allowance will be paid to them without any delay.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and appropriate direction for disbursement of the allowance has to be necessarily.
4. However, before parting with this case. I am constrained to observe that the stand taken by the authorities that the allowance would be granted only to those employees who move the court is totally unfortunate and unjustifiable. The above attitude is, to say the least, totally unbecoming of an institution like the Central Reserve Police Force. It has to be borne in mind by the authorities that these lowly paid employees will be put to avoidable difficulties if they are constrained to resort to litigations. Understandably these employees will have to engage a counsel. It may take years to get orders from the court because of the heavy pendency of WPC NO. 22729 Page numbers cases in most of the courts. If the Government had already taken a decision to grant the allowance to these categories of employees, there is no rhyme or reason for the authorities to insist that only those employees who file petitions before the court would be paid the benefits. In fact, this is a fit case in which the respondents have to be directed to pay cost to each of the petitioners. But I refrain from doing so in view of the assurance given by the learned Standing Counsel that the displeasure expressed by this Court will be conveyed to the authorities concerned and appropriate remedial measures will be taken without further delay. Learned counsel submits that appropriate orders to redress the grievance of similarly placed employees, who have been denied the benefit, will be issued expeditiously. The above submission is recorded.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the Hospital Patient Care Allowance to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO. 22729 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
OP NO.
JUDGMENT
WPC NO. 22729 Page numbers
21st DECEMBER, 2006