Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.The case in brief is as follows:

3.1 The petitioner Association is a recognised Association, representing Group C and D employees working in the third respondent, which is governed by the Bye-laws framed under the Societies Registration Act.

3.2 The third respondent was started in the year 1978, right from its inception, they have extended the pay scale as paid to the Central Government Employees to all its categories of staffs, in terms of Bye law 47 r/w 44 of the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (in short, 'the Council'). Even the recommendations http://www.judis.nic.in of the IV pay commission was implemented to all the employees including Group C and D. 3.3 It is further submitted that Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA)/Patient Care Allowance (PCA) from Rs.80/- to Rs.160/- to Group C staff and from Rs.75/- to Rs.150/- to Group D staff, were extended pursuant to the recommendations of the V Pay Commission and the same was followed by the third respondent in terms of its Bye laws. Unfortunately, further revision of HPCA/PCA to Rs.700/- for Group C and Rs.695/- for Group D staff, was not extended to the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner Association submitted a representation dated 31.01.2004 requesting to extend the said benefits to the Group C and D staff of the third respondent. However, the third respondent rejected the said request, by order dated 21.04.2005, which is impugned herein.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the respondents have implemented the V pay commission recommendations for the post of Stenographer, Head Clerk/Assistant, Physicians of Ayurvedha and Siddha etc., they failed to implement the http://www.judis.nic.in same by granting revision of HPCA/PCA to Group C and D staff, which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, the third respondent ought to have implemented the pay commission recommendations, in respect of Group C and D staff, in terms of Bye-laws 47 r/w 44 of its Memorandum of Association and Rules, Regulations. The learned counsel further submitted that in the decision referred to by the respondents, the true spirit of Bye-laws 44 and 47 and the earlier practice of implementing the revision of HPCA/PCA to Group C and D staff, was not brought to the notice of the High Court of Karnataka and hence, the decision rendered by the same does not apply to the facts of the present case. Thus, the learned counsel sought to quash the order impugned herein and for consequential direction to the third respondent to extend the benefits as applicable to the Group C and D staff.

10.It is the grievance of the petitioner that right from its inception, the third respondent has extended the pay scale as paid to the Central Government Employees to all its categories of staff viz., Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D, in terms of Bye-law 47 r/w 44 of the http://www.judis.nic.in MOA, Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the Council. Even they have implemented the recommendations of the IV Pay Commission to all the employees. However, the third respondent has declined to grant the revised PCA/HPCA allowance of Rs.700/- and Rs.695/-, as per the recommendation of the V Pay Commission, to the Group C and Group D staff working in the third respondent. According to the learned counsel, the recommendation of the Pay Commission qua PCA/HPCA, was extended to all the employees and the denial of the same, that too, without any notice/ communication to the Group C and D employees alone, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

15.It is to be noted that as per the guidelines contained in Government of India, the eligibility condition has been prescribed for sanctioning HPCA or PCA viz., the employees should be working in a Hospital having more than 30 beds; and the employees should have continuous and routine contact with infected patients of communicable diseases or should have handled infected materials or instruments as their primary duty, which can spread infection etc. The intention for the grant of PCA is that the patient infected with communicable diseases should not be neglected from society and they should get proper care and attendance in respective hospitals. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the third respondent is a full fledged hospital and it has 50 beds. As such, the members of the petitioner are entitled to PCA/HPCA allowances as fixed by the recommendations of the Pay Commission. However, the third respondent, after extending the said benefit, subsequently, reversing the same from the salary payable to those employees, that too, without any notice / communication, is arbitrary, http://www.judis.nic.in illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Such course adopted by the third respondent, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be countenanced.