R.A. Sharma and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Heard both sides.

The petitioners have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench to the extent it directed the respondents to pay Patient Care Allowance with effect from 15.05.1996. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be paid the Patient Care Allowance with effect from 01.04.1987.

It is seen that the claim is based on a notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioners are working in the Central Hospital under the Ministry of Labour. The petitioners were not being paid the allowance. They, therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench with O.A. No. 722 of 1995. Their complaint was that the allowance was not being paid to them according to the notification and the policy decision of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The respondents took the stand that the notification issued by the Ministry of Health was not ipso facto applicable to the employees of the Labour Department and that the Scheme formulated has not been adopted by the Ministry of Labour. It was further submitted that the respondents were actively considering the sanction of this allowance in consultation with the Internal Division of Finance and the decision in the matter would be taken very soon.

It appears that no decision was taken thereafter. In that context, the petitioner again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with O.A. 594 of 1997 complaining that the allowance was not being paid to them. The Tribunal after consideration of the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the applicants were entitled to grant of the Patient Care Allowance. The Tribunal found that inspite of several directions, apparently, no final decision has been taken and in the circumstance, it directed that the said allowance be paid to the petitioners with effect from 15.5.1996. i.e. from the date of its order in O.A. 722 of 1995.

According to the counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing that date, as the date of commencement for payment of the allowance, and the relevant date for payment of the allowance was 01.04.1987. Counsel for the respondents in answer submitted that a decision was taken for implementation of the scheme by the Ministry of Labour and strictly speaking, until such decision is taken, the Tribunal could not have ordered payment of the allowance. Counsel submitted that the date fixed by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case was based on relevant consideration and it could not be said to be arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court. He also sub- mitted that in absence of an order to that effect by the Ministry of Labour adopting the notification of the Ministry of Health, the petitioners are not legally entitled to the allowance merely because a notification on that behalf was issued by the Ministry of Health.

On a consideration of all the relevant aspects and the reasoning of the Tribunal in Paragraph-9 of its decision under challenge, we are of the view that no ground has been made out for interference with the direction issued by the Tribunal regarding the date from which the allowance is to be paid. Considering the fact that the matter of sanction of this allowance was in the active consideration of the Ministry of Labour, as per the argument on behalf of the respondents when the case come up for consideration before the tribunal in O.A. 722 of 1995, we fell that the Tribunal has acted fairly in fixing the date of commencement as 15.05.1996 i.e. the date of its direction in O.A. 722 of 1995, for payment of the allowance in question.

In any event we are not satisfied that any ground has been made out for interference by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the whole, we feel that the course adopted by the Tribunal is just. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.

The writ petition is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.