IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6271 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. RAJESH.V.G., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.V.GOPALAN, QUARTER NO.53, GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPPURAM, NOW WORKING AT COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM. 2. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADAN PRASAD MONDAL, SOS MESS, 194 BN, CRPF, PALLIPPURAM. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RANDHIR SINGH, COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM. 4. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM. 5. NARENDRA KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BHRAM PRAKASH, COMPOSITE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM. 6. RAGEESH.S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.D.SUDHAKARAN, AYYARAMKUZHI, KUTTAMAL P.O., VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. WP(C).No. 6271 of 2008 :: 2 :: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, C.G.O., COMPLEX NO.1, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR - ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6271 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are working as Pharmacists, Ward Boy and Hospital cook, were posted in the Group Centre, Hospital of the Central Police Reserve Force (for short 'CRPF'). The petitioners belong to Group C and D combatised hospital employees and are uniformed personnel. According to the petitioners, by Ext.P1 government order, all Government hospital employees were granted a Hospital Patient Care Allowance. Apparently, this was denied to the hospital staff of the CRPF. They had approached various courts and against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench, an appeal preferred by the Department was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Similar orders were passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Reference in this regard is made to Ext.P2. 2. Ext.P3 order was passed by the Government granting Hospital Patient Care Allowance to the non- W.P.(C).NO.6271/08 :: 2 :: ministerial staff and other Para-Military Forces. It seems that when persons had approached this court complaining of the non- disbursal of the similar benefit to them, this court had allowed their claim as per Ext.P4 judgment. Para 4 of the said judgment is relevant and is extracted hereunder: “However, before parting with this case, I am constrained to observe that the stand taken by the authorities that the allowance would be granted only to those employees who move the court is totally unfortunate and unjustifiable. The above attitude is, to say the least, totally unbecoming of an institution like the Central Reserve Police Force. It has to be borne in mind by the authorities that these lowly paid employees will be put to avoidable difficulties if they are constrained to resort to litigations. Understandably these employees will have to engage a counsel. It may take years to get orders from the court because of the heavy pendency of cases, in most of the courts. If the Government had already taken a decision to grant the allowance to these categories of employees, there is no rhyme or reason for the authorities to insist that only those employees who file petitions before the court would be paid the benefits. In fact, this is a fit case in which the respondents have to be directed to pay cost to each of the petitioners. But I refrain from doing so in view of the assurance given by the W.P.(C).NO.6271/08 :: 3 :: learned standing counsel that the displeasure expressed by this Court will be conveyed to the authorities concerned and appropriate remedial measures will be taken without further delay. Learned counsel submits that appropriate orders to redress the grievance of similarly placed employees, who have been denied the benefit, will be issued expeditiously. The above submission is recorded.” 3. When the entitlement of non-ministerial combatised staff of the CRPF to receive the Hospital Patient Care Allowance is admitted, there is no reason why the Department should wait for each and every eligible person to arm himself with a direction from this court. 4. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioners have approached this court. I heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. In my opinion, the petitioners' claim ought to be considered by the respondents. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a detailed W.P.(C).NO.6271/08 :: 4 :: representation before the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on the petitioners' claim for Hospital Patient Care Allowance in terms of Ext.P1, keeping in mind para 4 of Ext.P4 judgment, within a period of three months thereafter. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge