Additional duties do not entitle an employee to pay benefits for a nonexistent post.

The applicant, working as a Helper-Khalasi under the North Central Railway, alleged that he was additionally directed to perform Meter Reader duties from January 2007.

He initially refused, leading to a show-cause notice dated 23 January 2008; however, he was thereafter required to perform the duties.

In December 2020, he was charge-sheeted for irregularities in discharging those duties and was punished on 8 January 2021 with stoppage of one increment for two years, without cumulative effect.

In his appeal, he accepted the punishment but sought the pay and allowances attached to the alleged post of Meter Reader from January 2007.

The respondents contended that meter reading was a general maintenance duty forming part of the work assigned to Helpers and that no separate Meter Reader post existed in the department.

The applicant consequently sought a direction for consideration for appointment to the post of Meter Reader and consequential benefits.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment, or consideration for appointment, to the post of Meter Reader with corresponding pay and allowances from January 2007, despite the respondents’ assertion that no separate Meter Reader post existed.

2. Whether the applicant could claim pay and perks attached to the post of Meter Reader when there was no evidence that he had ever been appointed to such a post and the relevant duties formed part of his Helper-Khalasi responsibilities.

The Tribunal applied the principle that monetary and service benefits attached to a particular post cannot be granted unless that post exists in the relevant establishment and the employee has been duly appointed or promoted to it.

It further proceeded on the administrative-law principle that assignment of additional or distributed duties, without formal appointment to a separate sanctioned post, does not by itself confer entitlement to the pay scale or allowances of that post.

The Tribunal also treated the applicant’s acceptance of the disciplinary punishment in appeal, coupled with the absence of any challenge to the charge-sheet or punishment order, as relevant to the limited claim before it.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was misconceived because the alleged post of Meter Reader was not shown to exist in the Railway’s Electricity General Department.

The respondents’ unrebutted position was that meter reading was a general maintenance task included among the duties assigned to Helpers and did not require a separate post, specialised training, or specialised personnel.

There was also no documentary evidence establishing that the applicant had ever been appointed as a Meter Reader.

Accordingly, the performance of meter-reading duties could not create an entitlement to the pay and allowances of a distinct post.

The disciplinary proceedings further demonstrated that the duties were treated as responsibilities assigned to the applicant in his existing post; the applicant had accepted the punishment and had not challenged either the charge-sheet or the punishment order.

It held that he had no enforceable claim to appointment as, or payment of the benefits attached to, a Meter Reader because no separate Meter Reader post existed and he had never been appointed to such a post.

The Original Application was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.