AIIMS Administrative Association vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

1
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No . 2505/2025
C.P. No. 233/2026
M.A. No. 4867/2026
M.A. No. 4868/2026

Reserved on:- 01.10.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.10.2026


Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

1. AIIMS Administrative Association (Regd.),
Through its General Secretary,
Manoj Kumar Sharma, Aged- 50 Years,
S/o Sh. B.K. Sharma,
R/o 20-B, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003

2. Anil Kumar Dagar, Aged- 57 Years,
S/oSh. R.P. Dagar,
Working as Junior Administrative Officer,
In CN Center, AIIMS, New Delhi,
R/o VPO Ishapur, New Delhi.
...Applicants

(By Advocates: Mr. Yogesh Sharma with Mr. Piyush Sharma and Ms.
Sonika Gill)

Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi.

2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.

3. The Director,
All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS)
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-l10029

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Kaushal Gautam)
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

2
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV


ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

By way of the present O.A. the applicants have prayed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an
order of quashing the impugned orders dated 1.7.2025 (Annex.AIl),
order dated 7.5.2025 (Annex.AI2), order dated 21.4.2023 (Annex.Al3)
and other internal decisions taken by the respondents on the basis of
which the impugned order has been passed, declaring to the effect
that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and
consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to continue
granting the HPCA/PCA to the applicants with all the consequential
benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper
may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of
litigation.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants
argued that the present OA No. 2505/2025 has been filed challenging the
orders dated 01.07.2025 and 06.05.2025 whereby the benefit of HPCA/PCA
was discontinued in terms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
OM dated 21.04.2023.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants, being Non-
Ministerial staff of AIIMS, New Delhi, are entitled to the said benefits in
terms of the Government decisions following the 7th CPC and the OMs
dated 04.02.2004 and 18.09.2019.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

3
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the OM dated 21.04.2023 had already
been quashed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide judgment
dated 08.04.2026 in OA No. 063/474/2023, and that the identical claim of
Store Cadre employees for PCA had also been allowed by the Chandigarh
Bench vide judgment dated 18.05.2026 in OA No. 1170/2022.
2.3. As regards C.P. No. 233/2026, learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the Contempt Petition had been filed on account of the
respondents’ wilful and deliberate non-compliance with the interim order
dated 31.10.2025, passed by this Tribunal in the presence of their counsel,
staying the operation of the OM dated 21.04.2023. The interim order dated
31.10.2025 is reproduced below:
“Learned counsel for the applicant presses for interim relief in terms of
para. '9' of the O.A., which reads as under:
"Pending final disposal of the main O.A., the Hon'ble Tribunal may
graciously be pleased to pass an order staying the impugned order dated
01.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A/2),
as well as O.M. dated 21.04.2023, and directing the respondents to
continue granting HPCA/PCA to the applicants provisionally, subject to
the outcome of the O.A., as granted in the case of similarly situated
persons in O.A. No.1535/2023. Any other relief which the Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be granted."
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks one week’s time to file a reply.
However, the same is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the
applicant. He draws our attention to the earlier proceedings of this
Tribunal wherein the respondents had already taken time to file their
reply. He further submits that, as per the proceedings of this Tribunal
dated 27.10.2024, respondent no.3 had submitted that he would be filing
the reply during the course of the day. However, the same has not been
filed till date.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

4
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has
further drawn our attention to identical O.As., wherein the Chandigarh
Bench of this Tribunal passed orders dated 24.09.2025 and 15.10.2025 in
O.A. No.1170/2022 and O.A. No.913/2025 respectively, staying the
operation of the order dated 29.08.2025 till the next date of hearing.
Therefore, he seeks similar directions to the respondents in the present
case on the same terms.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the relief should be
considered and granted only after filing the counter affidavit in the
present matter. He again seeks one week’s time to file the same. However,
this request is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the
applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings available on record, we are of the considered view that the
Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal has already granted a stay in favour
of similarly situated applicants. Therefore, we find no reason to take a
divergent view.
In view of the above, the operation of the orders dated 01.07.2025 and
07.05.2025, as well as the O.M. dated 21.04.2023, is stayed till the next
date of hearing.
Re-list on 18.12.2025.”

2.4. Learned counsel contended that the interim order remained in force
and had neither been vacated nor modified, yet the respondents had failed to
implement it despite repeated opportunities and the lapse of approximately
eleven months. It was further submitted that the respondents’ challenge to
the interim order through Writ Petition No. 12356/2026 had been withdrawn
vide order dated 24.08.2026. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that
contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents for wilful
disobedience of the subsisting interim order.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

5
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

3. M.A. No. 4867/2026 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 seeking
vacation and recall of the interim order dated 31.10.2025 passed in present
O.A., and also for taking up the present O.A. in priority before proceeding
further with CP No. 233/2026 by relying upon State of J&K v. Mohd.
Yaqoob Khan , (1992) 4 SCC 167; Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd.
v. Sachidanand Dass , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465; Vinay Kumar Pandey v.
Committee of Management, Shri Gandhi Inter College , Civil Appeal
Nos. 4007–4008 of 2020, decided on 08.12.2020; and Safdarjung Hospital
Clerical Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors ., OA No.
1525/2023, decided on 09.04.2026.
3.1. Respondent No. 3 has also filed an Miscellaneous Application No.
4868/2026 seeking to place on record the judgment of this Tribunal titled
Safdarjung Hospital Clerical Staff Welfare Association v. Union of
India and Others (supra), on the ground that the said judgment concerns
the same Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2023 and the identical issue of
discontinuance of HPCA/PCA to ministerial staff, and is relevant for
consideration of the pending application seeking vacation of the interim
order dated 31.10.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the judgment of this
Tribunal in Safdarjung Hospital Clerical Staff Welfare Association v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra), is distinguishable on facts, as the said case
pertained to employees belonging to the Ministerial cadre of Safdarjung
Hospital, whereas the present applicants are working as Non-Ministerial
staff at AIIMS, New Delhi. It was further argued that, in the said judgment,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

6
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

the Tribunal had referred the issue of entitlement to HPCA/PCA to a high-
level committee for reconsideration, whereas the Chandigarh Bench of this
Tribunal had already quashed the OM dated 21.04.2023 vide judgment
dated 08.04.2026 in OA No. 063/474/2023. Accordingly, learned counsel
contended that the judgment in OA No. 1525/2023 is not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
present O.A. is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment dated
09.04.2026 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Safdarjung
Hospital Clerical Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. ,
(supra), concerning the very same Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2023.
Learned counsel submitted that in the said judgment, the Tribunal declined
to direct payment of HPCA/PCA to Ministerial Staff, protected the amounts
already paid from recovery and referred the issue to a High-Level
Committee for reconsideration.
5.1. Learned counsel further contended that the applicants, being
administrative/ministerial employees performing clerical duties, do not
satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions for grant of the said allowance,
which is intended for eligible non-ministerial employees having continuous
and routine contact with infected patients or handling infected material.
5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the allowance had been
extended to the applicants on a provisional basis, subject to recovery in the
event of their being found ineligible, and that its subsequent discontinuation
pursuant to the O.M. dated 21.04.2023 was a valid policy decision taken
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

7
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

with the requisite approval of the competent authority. The applicants had
no vested right to continue receiving an allowance for which they were not
eligible, and no case of arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of natural
justice was made out.
5.3. As regards C.P. No. 233/2026, learned counsel submitted that the
respondents had sought vacation of the interim order by filing M.A. No.
4867/2026, particularly in view of the subsequent judgment of the
coordinate Bench dealing with the same issue. It was contended that the
dispute essentially concerns the applicants’ entitlement to HPCA/PCA and
the validity of its discontinuation, which are matters to be adjudicated in the
O.A. itself.
5.4. Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance upon
Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor , (2000) 1 SCC 644, State of
Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti , 2022 INSC 401, Union of India v.
Sarvendra Singh Chauhan , 2017 INSC 765, BALCO Employees’ Union
v. Union of India , (2002) 2 SCC 333, Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru
v. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board , 2021 INSC 917, and
State of U.P. v. Ram Sukhi Devi , (2005) 9 SCC 733, in support of the
contentions regarding the discontinuance of HPCA/PCA, the binding effect
of the decision of a coordinate Bench, the limited scope of judicial review of
policy decisions, the principle of negative equality, and vacation of the
interim order granting the relief sought in the O.A.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

8
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

7. ANALYSIS :
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, the rival submissions advanced by
the parties, the material placed on record and the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by them, we find that the controversy arising in the present
Original Application concerns an issue of wider administrative significance,
namely, the admissibility of Hospital Patient Care Allowance/Patient Care
Allowance (HPCA/PCA) to ministerial staff working in hospitals and other
healthcare institutions. The issue involves consideration not merely of the
designation or classification of the posts held by the applicants, but also of
the nature of duties performed by them, the conditions under which such
duties are discharged and the policy framework governing the grant of the
aforesaid allowance.
7.2. It is necessary to appreciate that the admissibility of HPCA/PCA is
governed by the applicable instructions and eligibility conditions prescribed
by the competent authority from time to time. The relevant consideration is
whether the duties performed by the concerned employees satisfy the
prescribed conditions for grant of the allowance, particularly in relation to
continuous and routine contact with patients or infected materials and the
attendant occupational risks. Accordingly, neither the mere fact that an
employee belongs to the ministerial cadre nor the mere fact that such
employee is posted within the premises of a hospital can, in isolation, be
treated as conclusive of the question of entitlement. The matter requires
consideration in the light of the applicable policy, the prescribed eligibility
criteria and the actual nature and circumstances of the duties performed.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

9
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

7.3. At the same time, the consideration of such claims cannot be divorced
from the working environment in which the concerned employees discharge
their duties. Healthcare institutions involve the movement of patients,
attendants and medical personnel through different functional areas, and the
possibility of occupational exposure may vary depending upon the place of
posting, the nature of work and the frequency and circumstances of
interaction with patients or potentially infected materials. Consequently, an
appropriate determination requires due consideration of the relevant factual
circumstances rather than an assumption that all ministerial employees
necessarily face identical risks or, conversely, that all such employees are
necessarily excluded from consideration merely by reason of their
ministerial status.
7.4. The matter further requires consideration of the recommendations of the
Seventh Central Pay Commission, the decisions taken by the Government
upon examination of those recommendations, the relevant Cabinet-approved
resolutions, wherever applicable, and the subsequent Office Memoranda and
executive instructions issued in relation to HPCA/PCA. The scope and
effect of these instruments, including their applicability to ministerial staff
working in healthcare institutions, have been the subject matter of divergent
submissions and judicial consideration. A proper determination must,
therefore, take into account the relevant instruments in their entirety and
ascertain the legal effect of the decisions taken by the competent authority,
rather than proceeding on the basis of any isolated communication or
instruction.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

10
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

7.5. We also take note of the judicial pronouncements referred to by the
parties, which reflect differing approaches to the question of admissibility of
HPCA/PCA to ministerial employees. While the entitlement to an allowance
must be examined in accordance with the governing policy and the
applicable legal principles, the decisions rendered in matters involving
similarly situated employees and comparable policy provisions are relevant
considerations for ensuring consistency in the administration of service
benefits. In this context, the factual circumstances of the respective cases,
the precise issues adjudicated therein and the operative directions issued by
the concerned Benches would require due consideration before a uniform
determination is arrived at.
7.6. It is also relevant that the issue extends beyond the individual claims of
the applicants and may have implications for similarly placed ministerial
employees working in different hospitals and healthcare institutions under
the Government of India. In the absence of a comprehensive assessment of
the applicable eligibility criteria, the nature of duties performed by the
concerned categories of employees and the financial implications involved,
a blanket approach to the grant or discontinuation of the allowance may not
adequately address the distinct circumstances arising in individual cases. A
uniform policy, founded upon relevant considerations and implemented
consistently, would serve the interests of both administrative certainty and
fair treatment of eligible employees.
7.7. Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, we are of the view that a
comprehensive examination of the issue at the appropriate Government
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

11
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

level would be conducive to a consistent and legally sustainable resolution.
Such examination would appropriately encompass the applicable policy
instructions, the recommendations and subsequent decisions concerning the
Seventh Central Pay Commission, the prescribed Risk and Hardship Matrix,
the nature of duties performed by the concerned employees, the relevant
judicial pronouncements and the representations of the stakeholders. The
competent authority would also be required to consider the applicable
implementation framework and the financial implications of any decision
taken in accordance with law.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any final opinion on
the individual entitlement of the applicants to HPCA/PCA, the applicability
of any particular rate or the extent of any consequential monetary benefits,
we consdier it appropriate to leave the broader policy issue to be examined
by the competent authority in the Government of India. Such consideration
shall be undertaken objectively, in accordance with the applicable rules,
instructions and judicial pronouncements, and shall culminate in an
appropriate reasoned decision. The above course would enable the relevant
issues to be examined comprehensively while preserving the rights and
contentions of the parties in accordance with law.
8.2. Accordingly, the competent authority in the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of India, in consultation with the Department
of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, AIIMS and such other authorities as
may be considered necessary, is directed to undertake a comprehensive
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

12
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

examination of the issue of admissibility of Hospital Patient Care
Allowance/Patient Care Allowance (HPCA/PCA) to the concerned
categories of employees, including ministerial and non-ministerial staff
working in hospitals and healthcare institutions, in the light of the applicable
rules, policy instructions, recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay
Commission, the prescribed Risk and Hardship Matrix and the judicial
pronouncements on the subject. The applicants shall be at liberty to submit a
detailed representation, along with relevant supporting documents, before
the competent authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The competent authority shall consider the matter objectively,
afford an opportunity of hearing to the stakeholders, wherever considered
necessary, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The decision so taken
shall be communicated to the applicants and the concerned authorities for
appropriate implementation in accordance with law.
8.3. In view of the aforesaid directions, M.A. No. 4867/2026 seeking
vacation of the interim order dated 31.10.2025 and M.A. No. 4868/2026
seeking permission to place the judgment of this Tribunal on record stand
disposed of. The interim order dated 31.10.2025 shall remain operative till
the competent authority takes a decision in terms of paragraph 8.2 above or
until further orders of this Tribunal, whichever is earlier.
8.4. In view of the directions issued hereinabove, C.P. No. 233/2026 is
disposed of, leaving it open to the applicants to seek appropriate remedies in
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

13
Item No. 53 O.A. No. 2505/2025
Court No. IV

accordance with law in the event of non-compliance with the subsisting
orders of this Tribunal.
8.5. The Original Application, along with the pending Miscellaneous
Applications, stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)

/as/
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:00+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI