Executive instructions cannot override cabinet-approved resolutions or unilaterally withdraw allowances granted under judicial directions.

The applicants are Lower Division Clerks (LDC) and Upper Division Clerks (UDC) serving as ministerial staff at the Central Research Institute (CRI), Kasauli

The Institute is involved in the production and testing of life-saving vaccines and handling infectious samples

While Patient Care Allowance (PCA) was originally intended for non-ministerial staff under a 2004 circular, the applicants were granted PCA effective from 04.02.2004 following successful litigation in O.A. No. 060/972/2018 and subsequent recommendations by a 2018 Expert Committee

On 21.04.2023, Respondent No. 1 issued an Office Memorandum (OM) discontinuing Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA)/PCA for all ministerial staff, asserting that their duties were clerical and did not involve continuous contact with patients or infected materials

The applicants challenged this OM, arguing that it was issued without a show-cause notice and ignored the inherent biological risks of their workplace

1. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2023, discontinuing HPCA/PCA for ministerial staff, is legally sustainable given previous judicial directions and the Cabinet Resolution following the 7th CPC

2. Whether the discontinuation of the allowance without prior notice violates the principles of natural justice and constitutes an arbitrary withdrawal of a service condition

executive instructions cannot override or dilute a Cabinet-approved Resolution, specifically the Government Resolution dated 06.07.2017

PCA entitlement depends on the nature of duties and risk exposure rather than mere classification as "ministerial"

administrative actions cannot unilaterally nullify judicial orders, as held in Anil Rattan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

the requirement of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) before withdrawing benefits with civil consequences, as established in Krishan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had been granted PCA following a rigorous process involving judicial adjudication and an expert committee’s recommendation, which recognized their exposure to risk environments involving live viruses and bacteria

The court reasoned that the nature of the workplace—a vaccine production and testing facility—exposed ministerial staff to storage and handling risks similar to laboratory staff

The Tribunal found that the impugned OM dated 21.04.2023 was a blanket executive order that failed to conduct an individualized assessment of duties

since the 7th CPC recommendations were accepted via a Cabinet Resolution in 2017, the subsequent OM of 2023 could not restrict those benefits in a manner that contradicted the Resolution

withdrawing a long-standing allowance without providing an opportunity for hearing resulted in adverse civil consequences, rendering the action procedurally flawed

It held that the issue was squarely covered by the P.G.I. Employees Union decision, rendering the discontinuation arbitrary and irrational

The respondents were directed to continue the payment of HPCA/PCA to the applicants at existing rates and release all arrears within three months of the order

No order as to costs was made