2026:HHC:22902-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7035 of 2023 Decided on : 17.06.2026 Union of India and others …Petitioners Versus Vikram Pal Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) Challenge is to the order dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure P-6), wherein the speaking order dated 03.03.2021, denying benefit of Patient Care Allowance to the applicant, was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and it issued direction to grant the payment of the HPCA forthwith from the due date. 2. Counsel for the Union of India very fairly pointed out that the same was based on an earlier order passed in Original Application No. 147-HP-2012, titled Jitender Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, dated 17.08.2012. The same was further subject matter for consideration before the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22902-DB Coordinate Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 4793 of 2013, titled Union of India and others Vs. Jitender Singh and others, decided on 02.05.2017 (Annexure A-4), which was upheld and on that basis, the Tribunal as such, had granted the said relief. 3. It is further pointed out that in similar circumstances, thereafter also, the Coordinate Bench had again dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 8008 of 2023, titled Union of India and others Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Gautam and others, along-with connected matters, on 29.10.2024, which had been preferred against the orders passed by the Tribunal, dated 12.01.2023 and a direction was issued for restoring payment of Patient Care Allowance to the employees of the Central Research Institute, Kasauli. 4. It is not disputed that the Tribunal had already noticed that there were 40 different categories of employees of the CRI, who were held to be prone to the risk of contacting various viruses/bacteria and in such circumstances, the withdrawal of PCA from them was held not only to be unjustified but also arbitrary and irrational. 5. In such circumstances, once the issue had already become final inter se the said Institute, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition, for the reasons given above. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed, so 3 2026:HHC:22902-DB also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 17, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)