Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Prabhu Nath Prasad vs Union Of India on 18 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA NO.495/2010
MA No. 2876/2010
MA No. 829/2010
NEW DELHI THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2011
HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A)
1. Shri Prabhu Nath Prasad,
S/o Shri Mandev Sah,
R/o NICD, Campus
Qr. No.69, 22, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110054
2. Shri Ram Dass,
S/o Late Shri Hari Chan,
R/o NICD, Campus
Qr. No. 73, 22, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi 110054.
3. Shri Idreesh Khan,
S/o Shri Chand Khan,
R/o Gali Kua Wali,
Bazar Chitli Kabur,
Jama Masjid, Delhi-06.
4. Shri Prem Chand,
S/o Late Shri Gokal Chand,
R/o Makan No. 2236,
Gali Shankar Bazar Sita Ram
Delhi -110006.
5. Shri Krishan Lal,
S/o Late Shri Attar Singh,
R/o C-3/489, Nand Nagri,
Delhi 93.
6. Shri Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Ram Ratan,
R/o H.No. 407, Gali-Ramayan
Pooth Khurd, Delhi 110039
7. Shri Rajender Kumar,
S/o Shri
R/o Qtr. No.250, Type-II,
(MS) Sector-IV,
Timarpur, Delhi-54. . Applicants.
(By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India
The Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Directorate General of Health Services
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
4. National Institute of Communicable Diseases
Through The Special DG (PH) Director (NICD)
Directorate General of Health Services
22- Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi -110054. Respondents.
(By Advocate : SHri Hilal Haider)
: ORDER (ORAL) :
Seven Applicants have joined together challenging the order passed by the Respondents dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure A-1) whereby the Respondents have indicated that the proposal of the Applicants was considered in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and as per the advice they have indicated that Patient Care Allowance (PCA) and Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA) have to be discontinued with effect from 31.03.2010 even in respect of employees getting the PCA and HPCA. In this background, it is, further, inter alia stated that the question of inducting this allowance in respect of any fresh category of employees would not arise. Accordingly, Applicants requested for the PCA was not acceded to. This order was passed by the Respondents consequent to the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.687/2009 decided on 19.3.2009. The said OA was disposed of at the admission stage without going into merits of the case by directing the Respondents to take a final decision in the matter by treating the OA itself as a representation as to whether they would be entitled to get PCA and if not for what reasons. Thus, the Respondents passed the speaking order dated 01.02.2010 which has been assailed by the Applicants in the present OA and have revisited the Tribunal with the following prayers:
i) To set aside the impugned order at Annexure A-1 and to further direct the Respondents to grant the Applicants the benefit of patient care allowance w.e.f. 29th December, 1998 with all consequential benefits including arrears and pay and allowances.
That the Applicants be also granted 12% interest on the entire amount of arrears in terms of Patient Care Allowances w.e.f. 29.12.1998 till the date of payment.
Any other relief which this Honble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the Applicant.
2. Heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel representing the Applicants and Shri Hilal Haider, learned counsel representing all the Respondents.
3. Shri Chauhan would contend that claim of the Applicants was for extending PCA w.e.f. 29.12.1998, as the similarly situated and circumstanced Peon/Daftry had been getting. He also submitted that the said benefit of PCA had been granted to NMEP Delhi, RHTC Najafgarh, RAK College of Nursing, New Delhi, LRHS New Delhi and Port and Airport Health Organizations as per the Ministry of Health order dated 02.01.1999. He urges that by virtue of this invidious discrimination, the Applicants in the OA have been denied PA so far and not granted the PCA with effect from the date their counter parts in other Government of India Organisations are getting. His contention is that the impugned order does not state the reasons for not extending PCA to the Applicants. He contends that as on date their counter parts are getting. Therefore, he pleads that OA should be allowed.
4. Shir Hilal Haider appearing on behalf of the Respondents would submit that the Govt. of India is interested to discontinue the PCA and HPCA all together. Therefore, his contention is that the Union of India would not like to extend the same benefit to the Applicants as they have not been getting the PCA even from the year 1998. They bring fresh claimants in the category of Peon/Daftry demanding the PCA, their case was not accepted. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed denying extension of PCA to the Applicants. He further submits that Government of India is planning to introduce Risk Insurance Scheme in place of PCA and HPCA.
5. Having heard the rival contentions, the question for my determination is- whether the Applicants have been discriminated by the Respondents in view of the fact that similarly situated persons working in similar Institutions/Organizations are getting PCA?
6. It is admitted fact that vide Ministry of Health and Family Welfare OM dated 02.01.1999, the Peon/Daftry of various Govt. of India Organization are getting the PCA. Periodically, the PCA is being extended to them. Even today, I was informed that Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide their OM dated 06.04.2011 (a copy was taken on record) have continued the payment of PCA and HPCA to all eligible Group C and D employees working in Hospitals/Dispensaries in the Central Govt. for a further period of 6 months i.e. 30.06.2011 or till the introduction of the Risk Insurance Scheme, whichever is earlier. Learned counsel for the Respondents also submitted during the arguments that the PCA and HPCA are being replaced by the Risk Insurance Scheme. It is noted that on the previous occasion when the case came up the Respondents were directed to produce the relevant policy decision taken by them for discontinuation of PCA w.e.f. 31.3.2010. Even today such communication of policy decision could not be produced for my perusal. On query from the Bench it is clarified by the Counsel for the Respondents that the decision is going to be taken shortly by introduction of Risk Insurance Scheme. Such a Risk Insurance Scheme when introduced would be prospective and not retrospective.
7. Be that as it may, at present PCA and HPCA is being continued by the Respondents. Further, the Applicants in the present OA have been discriminated as they are also working as Peon/Daftry in National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) and their counter parts working in similar/different organizations of Govt. of India have been getting the PCA. Further, benefits of getting PCA have been continued as per the order dated 06.04.2011. Therefore, I come to the considered conclusion that the said order of the Respondents dated 01.02.2010 has not given any convincing reason rejecting the Applicants claim. As such, the said order is contrary to the facts presented in this OA and is liable to be quashed and set aside. I order accordingly.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is allowed in terms of the above conclusion and orders and the case is remanded back to the Respondents to re-examine the issue of discriminatory treatment meted out to the Applicants in dispassionate manner and pass the appropriate order to extend the PCA to them from the date they are entitled to. The said consideration and order should be passed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) Member (A) /pj/