S R KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following facts are not in dispute: The petitioners are working with BSF in various capacities like Pharmacist, ANM, Radiographer, Kahar as combined paramedical staff and are posted in various BSF hospital establishments. They also belong to Group C and D hospital staff (non-ministerial). The Government of India had passed orders dated 25.1.1988 conveying the sanction of the President of India to grant Patient Care Allowance (PCA)/Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA) to Group C and D (non-ministerial) employees including drivers of ambulance car @ Rs.80/- and Rs.75/- respectively with effect from 1.12.1987. An amendment was issued thereto on 5.3.1990 whereby the effective date of PCA was changed to 1.4.1987 instead of 1.12.1987. Since this benefit was not extended to the combatised staff, certain persons approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, vide OA No. 931/1993 seeking extension of the said benefit to them as well. This petition was allowed and CA No. 11966/1996 preferred by the Union of India against that judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17.10.2001 in the case known as Union of India vs. T.M. Jose and Ors.

(2.) It may also be mentioned that after the dismissal of the said appeal, benefit was extended to those 35 persons who had approached the CAT. Though the issue regarding payment of HPCA stood settled by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, which had attained finality and as per which such an allowance was admissible to combatised staff as well, the respondent did not suo moto extend this benefit to all similarly situated persons. Some other similarly situated personnel who were denied this benefit approached the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by means of WP No. 1148/2003. This writ petition was disposed of on 3.9.2003 directing the Government to take final decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioners in the said petition within a reasonable time. Admittedly, thereafter even those petitioners were granted benefit of HPCA. We may note that other High Courts, including this Court, have also granted similar benefits. However, the allowance is given by the respondents only to those persons who are approaching the Courts and obtaining orders in their favour. We fail to understand that in a matter like this why the respondents should not extend these benefits of their own to all similarly situated persons of their own. In WP (C) No. 1181/2008, which was filed by similarly situated persons working in CRPF, while allowing the said petition by our order dated 15.2.2008, we had inter alia observed as under :-

(3.) It is stated by Ms. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel for the BSF that since the matter is still pending consideration with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondents for the time being are giving benefit of HPCA only to those persons in whose favour court orders are passed. We fail to understand this approach of the respondents, particularly when the law on this aspect stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court given almost 7 years ago.