Cabinet decisions on allowances cannot be diluted by executive instructions or administrative interpretations.

The P.G.I. Employees Union (Group B, C and D Employees) and Ravinder Kumar Garg, a Technical Assistant at PGIMER, filed an Original Application seeking relief related to Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA)

Applicant No. 2, Ravinder Kumar Garg, joined the Institute on 18.08.1983 and received several promotions and financial up-gradations, eventually becoming a Technical Assistant

The Government of India accepted the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) on 25.07.2016, which were extended to autonomous bodies like PGIMER on 13.01.2017

PGIMER adopted the 7th CPC vide Office Order dated 09.02.2017

The 7th CPC recommended HPCA under the Risk and Hardship Matrix R1H3 at Rs. 4100 for Level-8 and below and Rs. 5300 for Level-9 and above, adopted by the Cabinet and notified on 06.07.2017

The Union requested revised HPCA on 08.11.2017, but the Institute conditionally allowed HPCA of Rs. 4100 only up to Level-6 on 07.12.2017

Despite further representation, the Institute rejected the claim on 07.02.2018, citing awaited specific orders from Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 1 stated that HPCA/PCA was historically admissible only to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ (non-ministerial) employees

Pending clarification, HPCA was provisionally allowed to employees up to Level-6 who received PCA during the 6th CPC, subject to an undertaking for recovery

The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare clarified on 29.05.2018 that approval was for staff receiving HPCA/PCA as on 30.06.2017, implying admissibility only to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories

During the OA's pendency, PGIMER provisionally sanctioned HPCA for Group A & B (Ministerial, Engineering Staff etc.) employees as per R1H3 from December 2022 vide order dated 20.12.2022

Subsequently, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued an O.M. dated 21.04.2023, deciding to discontinue HPCA/PCA to ministerial staff from its date of issue, which was later stayed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1170/2022

1. Whether the impugned decision dated 07.02.2018, denying revised HPCA/PCA to ministerial staff at PGIMER, is arbitrary and illegal, considering the 7th CPC recommendations and subsequent notifications

2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2023, discontinuing HPCA/PCA for ministerial staff, is valid and can override the Cabinet-approved 7th CPC recommendations and Resolution dated 06.07.2017

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to the revised HPCA/PCA rates as per the 7th CPC (R1H3) from 01.07.2017, along with arrears

The court primarily applied the principles derived from the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations as accepted by the Union Cabinet and notified through the Government of India Resolution dated 06.07.2017, which places HPCA/PCA in the Risk and Hardship Matrix under Cell R1H3 for various levels, effective from 01.07.2017

The court also relied on Article 14 of the Constitution of India concerning equality and non-discrimination

Furthermore, the judgment cited Union of India vs. Balbir Singh Turn, (2018) 1 SCT 503, which established that executive instructions cannot override or dilute a Cabinet decision based on Pay Commission recommendations

The court also referenced its own precedents in OA/1240/2022 and OA No.165/2020, which granted relief in similar circumstances concerning HPCA

The Tribunal also referred to its Principal Bench decision in OA No. 3517/2018, which quashed an OM restricting HPCA/PCA based on a cut-off date, emphasizing that such restrictions create artificial distinctions and are not in conformity with Cabinet decisions

The Tribunal found that once the Cabinet accepted the 7th CPC recommendations and notified them via Resolution dated 06.07.2017, which specifically stated that "Ministerial staff to continue to get HPCA/PCA as per R1H3" and that "revised rates shall be with effect from 01.07.2017," the respondents had no discretion to selectively withhold HPCA/PCA from ministerial staff

The selective implementation of allowances, while denying HPCA/PCA, was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

The Tribunal highlighted that similar central institutions like Indian Railways and NIMHANS, Bengaluru, had implemented HPCA/PCA under R1H3 uniformly

Regarding the OM dated 21.04.2023, the Tribunal, citing Union of India vs. Balbir Singh Turn, reasoned that an executive instruction cannot override a Cabinet-approved Pay Commission notification

Therefore, this OM was held to be ultra vires and without authority of law insofar as it sought to deny HPCA/PCA already sanctioned by the Cabinet Resolution

The provisional grant of HPCA by the Institute itself from December 2022 was seen as an admission of eligibility, rendering the denial of arrears from 01.07.2017 arbitrary and lacking legal or rational basis

The court also noted that its Principal Bench in OA No. 3517/2018 had quashed a similar OM restricting HPCA/PCA based on a cut-off date, reinforcing that such restrictions create artificial distinctions among similarly placed employees

Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure A-14) and the OM dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure A-18), insofar as they deny HPCA/PCA to the applicants, are set aside

The respondents are directed to grant HPCA/PCA to the applicants at R1H3 rates as per the 7th CPC, with effect from 01.07.2017, and to pay all consequential arrears, adjusting any amounts already paid, within three months from the date of receipt of the order

The Original Application is allowed