Person Officiated To Higher Post On Orders Is Entitled To Pay In That Cadre Even If Later Found To Be Ineligible: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.
A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be given the pay of the cadre he was officiated to, for his period of officiation, irrespective of having the requisite qualifications. The CAT also entitled the respondent to all consequential benefits including pension fixation.
Referring to a series of orders rendered by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Bench held:
“17. So far as the payment of the pay for the officiating post is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the respondent officiated in the post on the orders of the authorities and for the period of officiation, he was entitled for pay in the cadre of HSG-I from the date of his officiating as HSG-I. (Higher Selection Grade)”
Background:
The controversy arose when the postal department attempted to recover amounts, they claimed were erroneously paid to K. Murthy (the respondent herein) due to incorrect pay fixation when he was promoted to Assistant Post Master (Accounts); and during his officiating period as HSG-I Postmaster. The department contended that since the respondent had not completed the mandatory three years in HSG-II grade, he wasn't entitled to HSG-I pay during his officiating period.
This finding was challenged before the CAT by the respondent herein.
The CAT, in its order, ruled in favor of the respondent directing the restoration of his earlier pay fixation and the pay received during his HSG-I officiation period. The Tribunal emphasized that the three-year service requirement was applicable only for regular promotion and couldn't be used to deny salary attached to an officiating position.
Challenging this order, the Superintendent of the Post Office filed the present writ.
The Division Bench while dismissing the claim of the Post office relied on various Supreme Court precedents rendered in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Portblair, to reiterate that eligibility conditions for regular promotion cannot be used to deny salary for the period an employee officiates in a higher post.
The bench emphasized that when authorities order an employee to take up higher responsibilities, they cannot later deny the corresponding remuneration on grounds of ineligibility.
“In the present case, the Tribunal under the impugned Order dated 19.11.2008, has also held the respondent herein to be entitled for all consequential benefits, viz., fixation of pension and retiral benefits, to be calculated accordingly. So, as far as the direction to this effect is concerned, we do not find any illegality inasmuch as the present respondent was promoted to HSG-I on regular basis on 20.05.2005. He did not retire working as HSG-I on officiating basis. In A. Mrutyumjaya Rao (supra) and K. Gandhi (supra), the applicants therein were not promoted on regular basis… We do not find any illegality in the Order of the Tribunal.”
Case title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana Murthy
Counsel for petitioner: Josyula Bhaskara Rao SC for Central Government