High Court says Officer temporarily in charge of a higher post not entitled to higher pay scale

The Delhi High Court, in a ruling by Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. The CAT had upheld that the assignment of “current duty charge” of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) post to the petitioner, an Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), did not entitle him to the DC pay scale. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was not formally appointed to hold full charge of the DC post and thus was not eligible for its pay scale.

The petitioner, promoted as ADC in 2002, was assigned the “current duty charge” of DC in 2007 but continued to receive his ADC salary of ₹15,600–39,400. He contended that he was entitled to the DC pay scale as he performed DC duties, while a junior officer was granted ₹37,400–67,000. Aggrieved, he sought relief from the CAT, which referred the case to a larger bench to address whether “current duty charge” of a higher post warranted the higher pay scale.

CAT’s Decision

The Tribunal, relying on several judgments, held that an officer temporarily in charge of a higher post was not entitled to its pay scale unless specified allowances were included for prolonged assignments. It dismissed the petitioner’s claim, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Contentions

• Petitioner:
  The petitioner argued that as per applicable rules and judgments, such as North DMC v. Anil Dalal, officers assigned additional charge of a higher post should receive its pay scale. He claimed the CAT misapplied FR 49 provisions and submitted office orders showing he performed DC duties.
• Respondent:
  The respondents maintained that “current duty charge” did not entitle the petitioner to DC pay. The April 2007 order explicitly denied him any benefits from the higher post.

High Court’s Findings

The Court upheld the CAT’s ruling, observing:

1. The April 2007 order assigned the petitioner only a “stop-gap arrangement,” not substantive charge of the DC post.
2. The term “another post” in FR 49 (v) applies to any additional post, irrespective of its status relative to the officer’s existing position.
3. Documents provided by the petitioner did not substantiate his claim to the DC post or its pay scale.

Referring to Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. UOI, the Court reiterated that temporary arrangements do not confer rights or expectations of higher benefits.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CAT’s decision. However, it remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh review of the petitioner’s claim to the DC pay scale from 15 September 2006, which was granted to his junior.

Trending 🔥