Additional remuneration under FR 49(iii) is unavailable for holding same-cadre posts in different offices.

The applicant, a retired Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Department, was substantively posted as Private Secretary to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II, Chennai. Pursuant to an order dated 12 November 2010, he was entrusted with the additional charge of Private Secretary to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, which he held until 24 May 2013—exceeding three months.

Claiming additional remuneration under Fundamental Rule 49(iii), he relied on the decision of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in Rajarshi Das Gupta v. Union of India, O.A. No. 784/2010. After his representations were not acted upon, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order; the respondents thereafter rejected his claim by order dated 23 June 2017. The applicant challenged that rejection in the present Original Application.

1. Whether the applicant’s holding of the additional charge of Private Secretary in another Income Tax office entitled him to additional remuneration under F.R. 49(iii), notwithstanding that both posts were in the same cadre and involved substantially similar duties?

2. Whether the decision in Rajarshi Das Gupta v. Union of India entitled the applicant to similar relief?

The Tribunal applied Fundamental Rule 49, which regulates the pay of a Government servant temporarily appointed to officiate in one or more independent posts. Under F.R. 49(i), additional pay is available where the employee holds full charge of a higher post in the same office and cadre; F.R. 49(ii) bars additional pay for dual charges of posts in the same cadre and office carrying identical pay scales; and F.R. 49(iii) permits the pay of the higher post together with 10% of the presumptive pay of the additional post where the additional post is in another office, or is not in the same cadre or promotional line, subject to the prescribed duration and approval requirements.

F.R. 49(v) excludes additional pay for merely holding current charge of routine duties.

The Tribunal also considered Rajarshi Das Gupta v. Union of India, where additional remuneration was granted in the context of statutory functions and an additional statutory post constituting a distinct and independent entity, and distinguished it on its facts. It further relied on its earlier decision in O.A. No. 415/2015, which denied additional remuneration where the employee performed routine, non-statutory duties while holding the additional charge.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s additional charge did not satisfy the substantive requirement of F.R. 49(iii). Although the applicant argued that the posts were located in different offices, both posts were those of Private Secretary, belonged to the same cadre, and involved substantially similar duties.

The fact that the offices of the two Commissioners were distinct did not, by itself, establish that the applicant was holding a different or higher post for purposes of additional remuneration.

The Tribunal also noted that both posts fell within the overall jurisdiction of the DGIT (Investigation), Chennai, and that neither post was higher than the post substantively held by the applicant.

Rajarshi Das Gupta was distinguishable because it concerned statutory functions and an additional statutory post forming a distinct and independent entity, whereas the applicant performed the same Private Secretary duties in both offices.

Accordingly, the duration of the additional charge, though exceeding three months, could not independently create an entitlement where the nature and cadre requirements of F.R. 49(iii) were not met.

The rejection order dated 23 June 2017 was upheld, the Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no order was made as to costs.