Similarly situated non-ministerial employees are entitled to Patient Care Allowance from the due date.

The applicants are civilian Group-C, non-ministerial employees of Military Hospital, Palampur, employed in roles including MTS Chowkidar, MTS Mali, Tradesman Mate, Painter and Tailor.

They claimed that their duties exposed them to patients or potentially infected materials and sought restoration of Hospital Patient Care Allowance/Patient Care Allowance (HPCA/PCA), which they said had previously been paid but was later stopped.

They relied on Government instructions and earlier Tribunal and court decisions, and submitted a representation seeking the allowance and arrears.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that the applicants’ trades were not among the categories identified as eligible under the applicable instructions.

The applicants relied in particular on the Tribunal’s decision in Yash Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1380/2024.

1. Whether the applicants, as Group-C non-ministerial employees of Military Hospital, Palampur, were entitled to Patient Care Allowance.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay the allowance from the due date, with interest, and within a specified period.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the applicants’ original application.

The Tribunal relied on its decision in Yash Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1380/2024, which had granted Patient Care Allowance to the applicants there, drawing on the principles discussed in Jatinder Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision upholding that ruling: employees exposed to infectious material in the course of their duties may qualify for the allowance, and eligibility is not necessarily limited to employees working in hospitals or having direct contact with patients.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of the Yash Sharma decision to the present case.

The Tribunal treated the applicants as similarly situated to those in Yash Sharma.

It noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of that decision and, on that basis, found the applicants entitled to the same relief, notwithstanding the respondents’ position that the applicants’ trades were not identified as eligible under the relevant instructions.

The Tribunal did not separately examine the eligibility of each applicant’s particular duties.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.