An employee substantially discharging higher-post duties is entitled to the corresponding minimum-scale pay difference for the verified period.

The applicant, an Assistant Administrative Officer, claimed that after the Administrative Officer retired, he was assigned that post’s charge and performed its duties.

The judgment records differing end dates for that period, which the Tribunal directed the respondents to verify from official records.

The respondents rejected his claim for the higher post’s pay, contending that he had not been formally appointed to the post and that Fundamental Rule 49 did not entitle him to additional pay.

The applicant’s earlier Original Application had been dismissed as not pressed; the High Court later disposed of his writ petition while preserving his right to file a fresh application and observing that it could be entertained on merits without a limitation objection.

Whether the applicant’s performance of the Administrative Officer’s duties entitled him to the pay difference for that post despite the absence of a formal appointment order.

Whether the application was barred by limitation, or the applicant had relinquished his claim by not pursuing it during service.

Fundamental Rule 49 governs the pay of a government servant formally appointed to hold charge of another post.

The judgment reproduces provisions concerning full charge of a higher post, dual charge of posts in the same cadre carrying identical pay, charge of posts outside the same office or cadre, and current charge of routine duties; it records the respondents’ reliance on Rule 49(ii).

The Tribunal also relied on Uma Kant Pandey v. Union of India and referred to Tripurari Dubey v. State of U.P. and Union of India v. S.C. Pandey as authorities concerning pay for duties performed on a higher post.

The High Court’s order in the applicant’s earlier proceedings preserved his right to file a fresh application and stated that it could be entertained on merits without a limitation objection.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ reliance on Rule 49(ii), reasoning that the applicant had held charge of the Administrative Officer’s post for a considerable period and was performing the higher post’s duties.

It considered Uma Kant Pandey relevant and concluded that the respondents’ submissions and the reasons in the impugned order could not stand.

It also rejected the limitation objection, noting that the High Court had preserved the applicant’s right to file a fresh application and that he had claimed the higher-post salary during his service.

Rather than award a fixed amount, the Tribunal directed verification of the applicant’s actual duties and the period for which they were performed.

It directed the respondents to verify the period during which the applicant actually discharged the duties and responsibilities of the Administrative Officer and, if he performed substantially the same duties, to pay the difference between his actual pay and the minimum of the higher post’s pay scale, with admissible allowances.

The exercise was to be completed within three months; interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposits was awarded from the date of filing the application until payment.