CAT directs Centre to grant Patient Care Allowance to Kasauli research institute assistant technical officers

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Director of the Central Research Institute (CRI), Kasauli, to grant Patient Care Allowance (PCA) to assistant technical officers working at the institute from the due date and release the arrears within two months.

The order came on an application filed by Mridul Sharma and other assistant technical officers/factory managers employed at the CRI, Kasauli, in Solan in Himachal Pradesh.

The applicants submitted that they are Group B non-ministerial employees who were initially appointed as technical supervisors. Their posts were merged/re-designated as assistant technical officers with effect from September 28, 2017, without any change in pay scale or the nature of duties.

They argued that they are engaged in laboratories where they routinely handle infected materials, biological samples, hazardous chemicals and laboratory equipment, exposing them to communicable diseases and occupational hazards on a continuous basis. According to them, their duties fulfil the prescribed conditions for grant of PCA.

The applicants pointed out that the government had issued detailed guidelines on February 4, 2004, making Group C and Group D non-ministerial employees handling infected materials eligible for Hospital/PCA. They contended that despite fulfilling the prescribed conditions, eligible employees of CRI had been denied the benefit.

They also referred to an earlier CAT judgement in the case of Tej Pal Kashyap and others, in which similarly situated employees were held entitled to the allowance. The applicants said they had submitted representations in August 2025 seeking the same benefit. However, they were informed that since they were not parties to the earlier original application, they were not entitled to the benefit.

They contended that the denial of PCA was arbitrary, legal and unsustainable as they continue to perform the same duties after the redesignation of their posts.

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal observed that the applicants were holding the same posts, working in the same laboratories, discharging identical duties and facing the same occupational hazards as the applicants in Tej Pal Kashyap and others.

The Bench noted that the respondents had failed to point out any distinguishing feature between the two sets of emplyees.

Holding that the applicants were similarly situated and entitled to parity in service benefits, the Tribunal directed the respondents to release the PCA from the due date as granted to the applicants in the Tej Pal Kashyap case and complete the exercise within two months of receiving a copy of the order.