Competent authorities must decide HPCA/PCA claims under the 7th CPC Risk and Hardship Matrix by reasoned order.

The 24 applicants are Group-C employees of AIIMS, Bilaspur, holding posts including Storekeeper, Library Attendant/Librarian, Stenographer, Junior Administrative Assistant, Cashier, Hostel Warden, Junior Warden and Junior Engineer (Civil).

They were appointed between 2 March 2022 and 23 June 2026 and claimed Hospital Patient Care Allowance/Patient Care Allowance (HPCA/PCA), asserting that their duties involved routine exposure to patients suffering from communicable diseases and/or infected materials, instruments and equipment.

The applicants relied on the Government instructions dated 4 February 2004, the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 6 July 2017, and the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 25 July 2017, under which HPCA/PCA was retained within the Risk and Hardship Matrix of the Seventh Central Pay Commission at the prescribed rates.

The applicants had submitted representations dated 5 February 2025 and 24, 25 and 28 July 2026 seeking payment of the allowance.

At the hearing, the applicants restricted their prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to consider and decide their claim in accordance with that decision and the applicable rules. The respondents consented to this limited prayer.

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the applicants’ claim for HPCA/PCA under the Seventh CPC Risk and Hardship Matrix and in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 13 February 2026 in O.A. No. 181/2018.

Whether the Tribunal should itself determine the applicants’ entitlement to HPCA/PCA, including arrears and interest, at the admission stage.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The substantive framework comprised the Government instructions dated 4 February 2004 concerning HPCA/PCA and the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 6 July 2017, circulated through DoPT O.M. dated 25 July 2017, which retained HPCA/PCA within the Seventh CPC’s Risk and Hardship Matrix (R1H3), at the applicable rates for eligible employees.

The Tribunal also considered the precedent in P.G.I. Employees Union (Group B, C and D Employees) v. PGIMER, Chandigarh, O.A. No. 181/2018, decided on 13 February 2026, relied upon by the applicants in support of their claim.

The applicants initially sought direct payment of HPCA/PCA, arrears and interest, contending that they were similarly situated to employees covered by the Seventh CPC framework and the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 181/2018.

However, during the hearing, they confined the relief to a direction for consideration and a reasoned decision. Since the respondents conceded this limited prayer, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine whether each applicant substantively satisfied the eligibility conditions for HPCA/PCA, whether the 21 April 2023 O.M. applied to them, or whether arrears and interest were payable.

It therefore directed the competent authority to examine the claims under the applicable Risk and Hardship Matrix and in light of the earlier Tribunal order, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicants’ claims for HPCA/PCA under the Seventh CPC Risk and Hardship Matrix (R1H3), and in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 13 February 2026 in O.A. No. 181/2018.

The exercise was required to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claims. No order was made as to costs.