CHAIRMAN, ORDNANCE FACTORY BOARD Vs. KANU CHANDRA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 19th May of 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in O. A. No. 435 of 2003 has been challenged in the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid order the Tribunal granted the prayers of the applicants therein for allowing the applicants 'patient care allowance ' (here in after described in short as the P. C. A.) as per the revised rate and according to the policy in the matter of the respondents. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order of the Tribunal the Union of India and others have filed the present Writ Petition.

(2.) THE Respondents have been working in the category of Gr. C and D in the Ordnance Factory, Health Clinic, at Dum Dum. As per the relevant policy and the Government orders all the Respondents had been granted and they are enjoying P. C. A. at the rate of Rs. 75.00 (rupees seventy -five only) per month and at the rate of Rs. 80.00 (rupees eighty only) per month prescribed for the employees under Gr. D and Gr. C respectively. Subsequently, by orders dated 28.09.1998 and 29.12.1998 the rate of P. C. A. had been revised and increased. But the benefit of such revised rate had not been extended to the present Respondents. The Respondents submitted repeated representations before the authority for granting them P. C. A. at revised rates, but such representations had been turned down. Ultimately, the Respondents filed the O. A. No. 435 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, praying for the same and the Tribunal allowed the application of the Respondents and directed the present Petitioners to pay P. C. A. to the Respondents at the revised rates. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Tribunal the authorities of the Ordnance Factory Board and Ordnance Factory of Dum Dum and their officers filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondents argued that the Respondents are getting P. C. A. since the inception of the scheme. So, the issue whether or not the Respondents are entitled to P. C. A. is not relevant in the present case. He further submitted that the guideline in the matter referred to by the Petitioners does not say that employees of any Dispensary or Clinic shall be entitled to P. C. A. only when there is any bed in that Dispensary or Clinic. Learned Advocate for the Respondents submitted further that when the Respondents are entitled to and getting P. C. A., there cannot be any bar to allow such P. C. A. in the rates revised from time to time.