Stoppage of patient care allowance without hearing or factual assessment of exposure violates natural justice.

The 106 applicants are ministerial staff (Group C) working at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Historically, Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA) was sanctioned for Group C and D employees at NIMHANS starting in 1990, irrespective of ministerial or non-ministerial status, due to the inherent infection risks within the hospital campus

On 21.04.2023, the 1st Respondent (Ministry) issued an Office Memorandum (OM) directing the discontinuation of HPCA for all ministerial staff in Central Government healthcare facilities

Consequently, NIMHANS withheld the allowance from June 2023 and sought recovery of payments made between April and May 2023

NIMHANS officially requested the Ministry to reconsider, noting that ministerial staff rotate through high-risk areas like Outpatient Departments (OPD) and clinical labs where they face routine contact with patients

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA) based on the nature of their duties and work environment?

2. Whether the impugned Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2023 and the subsequent stoppage of HPCA by the Respondents is legally justifiable?

The Tribunal applied the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (natural justice), asserting that any administrative action entailing civil consequences, such as financial loss, requires a prior notice and hearing

It relied on the precedent set in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, which held that reducing pay without an opportunity to show cause is a flagrant violation of law

The Tribunal further applied the "fundamental test" established in Union of India v. Prabhu Nath Prasad and Union of India v. Surendra Pal Singh (affirmed by the Supreme Court), which mandates that HPCA eligibility must be adjudicated on the specific facts of exposure to infection risk rather than through blanket role classifications

Finally, it noted that the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and the subsequent Cabinet Resolution dated 06.07.2017 expressly included ministerial staff in the Risk and Hardship Matrix for HPCA/PCA

The Tribunal found the stoppage of HPCA to be procedurally flawed as it was implemented without hearing the affected employees, thereby violating natural justice

On merits, the Tribunal highlighted the 2nd Respondent’s own admission that ministerial staff are frequently posted to "risk areas" like the OPD, Medical Record Department, and Clinical Departments (e.g., Neuropathology and Neurovirology)

It reasoned that since administrative and clinical blocks share a common 100-acre campus, infection risks are pervasive in elevators, common utility areas, and through contact with patient-facing staff

The Tribunal held that a "blanket/general order" for stoppage of HPCA without a quantitative assessment of actual duties is arbitrary and contrary to the Cabinet-approved 7th CPC recommendations

It concluded that an executive instruction (the OM) cannot override established legal principles regarding workplace risk and parity

The Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled to the allowance due to their continuous exposure to an infectious environment

The Respondents were directed to resume HPCA payments to the applicants and release all arrears within eight weeks of receipt of the order