GUR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Group C and D combatised hospital staff working with CRPF and are seeking the grant of Patient Care Allowance (PCA)/Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA). Without stating the factual or legal position in detail, it would be sufficient to point out that similarly situated persons had approached various High Courts for this benefit. The Madhya Pradesh High Court decided a writ petition on 22.11.2004 directing that such combatised staff shall also be entitled to the aforesaid allowance at par with non-combatised hospital staff. Thereafter, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court took the same view vide its judgment dated 28.4.2005. In fact, much before that, the principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had granted similar relief and the Civil Appeal being CA No. 11966/1996 filed by the Union of India against the said judgment of the CAT in the case of Union of India v. T.M. Jose and Ors. was dismissed on 17.10.2001 by the Supreme Court.

(2.) In spite of these orders and when the issue had attained finality in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we fail to understand as to why general orders are not passed by the respondents till date granting benefit to all such Group C and D combatised hospital staff. Even this Court had earlier passed orders dated 30.11.2007 in WP (C) No. 7046/2007 and WP (C) Nos. 8945- 64/2007. Thereafter, some other personnel filed WP (C) No. 1181/2008 by similarly situated persons. While allowing that petition by our judgment dated 15.2.2008, we had inter alia observed as under :-

(3.) It is a matter of record that in spite of such orders passed repeatedly, the respondents are paying PCA/HPCA only to those who are approaching the courts and getting the orders in their favour. As a model employer it is the duty of the respondent to extend this benefit to all similarly situated persons. Notwithstanding our directions in order dated 15.2.2008, the petitioners herein are again forced to approach this Court, as without specific orders in their favour, the respondents have refused to extend the benefit, though it is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that these two petitioners are similarly situated and are entitled to the said allowance.