HPCA Linked to Substantive Post, Not MACP Pay Scale, Rules CAT Chandigarh

Chandigarh, October 17, 2025 – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, has delivered a significant ruling on the calculation of Hospital Patient Care Allowance (HPCA), clarifying that the allowance must be paid based on the pay level of an employee’s substantive post, not the higher pay scale drawn after financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme.

The decision came in the case of PGI Employees Union (Non Faculty) v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) , where the tribunal dismissed the application filed by the union, upholding the administration's stance on the matter.

Case Background: The Core Dispute

The case was brought forward by the PGI Employees Union on behalf of non-faculty allied healthcare professionals at PGIMER, Chandigarh. The core of their grievance was the rate at which they were being paid HPCA.

Following the 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations, HPCA was set at two rates: - ₹4,100 per month for employees in Pay Level 8 and below. - ₹5,300 per month for employees in Pay Level 9 and above.

The applicants, while holding substantive posts in Pay Level 8 or below, were drawing salaries equivalent to Pay Level 9 or higher due to financial upgradations granted under the MACP scheme. They argued that their HPCA should be calculated at the higher rate of ₹5,300, consistent with their current pay level.

Arguments from Both Sides

Applicants' Position (PGI Employees Union):

The union argued that the denial of the higher allowance was arbitrary and discriminatory. Their key contentions were:

- Other perks and allowances, such as House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), and Leave Travel Concession (LTC), are calculated based on the actual pay level drawn by an employee after MACP upgradation.

- They drew a parallel with the faculty staff at PGI, who receive benefits based on promotions under the Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS), which they claimed was similar in nature to MACP.

- They alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, citing unequal treatment.

Respondents' Position (PGIMER & Union of India):

The respondents, represented by PGIMER and various government ministries, defended their decision by relying on established government guidelines. Their main arguments were:

- A Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated February 10, 2000, explicitly clarifies that the classification of a post for such allowances should be based on the scale of the post held on a regular basis , not the higher pay scale granted under the ACP/MACP scheme.

- The MACP scheme provides only financial upgradation to alleviate stagnation and does not involve a promotion to a higher post or a change in duties and responsibilities.

- The Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS) for faculty is fundamentally different from MACP, as it involves promotion to a higher post (e.g., Assistant to Associate Professor) with a corresponding change in duties.

Tribunal’s Analysis and Ruling

The bench, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Anjali Bhawra (Member A), meticulously examined the government memorandums governing the payment of HPCA. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of these official circulars.

"The classification of the post held by the officer should be with reference to the scale of pay of the post held by the Government servant on regular basis and not with reference to the higher pay scale granted to the Government servant under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme," the Tribunal noted, quoting a key government clarification.

The judgment emphasized that the government's policy has consistently linked the allowance to the substantive post. The 2019 Office Memorandum, which revised the HPCA rates post the 7th Pay Commission, continued this linkage by referring to the "Level of Pay Scale" of the post, not the pay drawn by the individual.

The Tribunal explicitly stated:

“In view of the observations, it is clear that HPCA/PCA is linked with the level which is the substantive post and thus the Tribunal is of the view that there is no discrepancy in the orders... passed by the respondents.”

The court also dismissed the applicants' comparison with the faculty's APS scheme, agreeing with the respondents that the two schemes are distinct and cannot be equated.

Final Decision and Implications

The Tribunal concluded that the OA was without merit and dismissed it. The ruling reinforces the principle that financial upgradation schemes like MACP do not automatically entitle employees to allowances linked to higher promotional posts unless specifically provided for in the rules. This judgment serves as a key clarification for government employees across various healthcare institutions regarding the calculation of HPCA and similar allowances tied to post classification.