Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. N. Jayamma vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.506/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Smt. N. Jayamma, W/o Late Shri Chinna Rao, Ex. Daftry, NCDC, R/o Qr. No.322, Lancers Road, Timarpur, Delhi ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delh. 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) :
The Applicant Smt. N. Jayamma is the legal heir of her husband Late Chinna Rao, who was working with the RespondentsNICD and has passed away on 17.08.2009. Even though the employee of the Respondents has passed away the relief requested by the Applicant is similar to the relief submitted by the Applicants in OA No.495/2010. She has prayed the following relief(s).
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 Applicant and Shri Hilal Haider, learned counsel representing all the Respondents.
3. Shri Chauhan would contend that claim of the Applicant was for extending PCA w.e.f. 29.12.1998 to her husband 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 husband has been denied and not granted the PCA with effect from the date his counter parts in other Government of India Organisation are getting. His contention is that the impugned order dated 1.02.2010 does not indicate the reasons for not extending PCA to the Applicants husband. Further, it is stated that similarly placed Peons and Daftries are getting the PCA. Therefore, he urges that the 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 husband as he was not getting the PCA even from the year 1998. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed denying extension of PCA to the Applicants husband. It is further stated that the Risk Insurance Scheme is expected shortly to replace PCA and HPCA.
5. Having heard the rival contentions, the question for my determination is- whether the Applicants husband has 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 Respondent No.1s OM dated 02.01.1999, the Peon/Daftry of various Govt. of India Organization are getting the PCA and the same isbeing continued periodically. 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 that the PCA and HPCA would be 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. 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, and 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 husband in the present OA had been discriminated as he was working as Peon in National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) and his counter parts working in similar/different organization in the Govt. of India have been getting the PCA. Further, benefits of getting PCA have been discontinued 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 assigned any convincing reason rejecting the claim. As such, the said order is contrary to the facts presented in the 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 findings and the case is remanded back to the Respondents to re-examine the issue of discriminatory treatment meted out to the Applicants husband in dispassionate manner and pass the appropriate order to extend the PCA to him from the date he is entitled to. The said order shall be passed within a period 9 weeks months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) Member (A) /pj/