Claim for higher post benefits denied without formal appointment by competent authority.

The applicant, Man Singh Bisht, retired as an Office Superintendent on June 30, 2020.

He claims that he was assigned the work of Chief Office Superintendent from February 1, 2013, onwards, based on an office order dated January 24, 2013, and related office noting.

He presented various documents, including an Identity Card, Vishisht Award, Proficiency Certificate, and training nominations, all listing his designation as Chief Office Superintendent.

After retirement, he submitted a representation on July 23, 2021, seeking consequential benefits for holding the higher post, which the respondents did not address.

The respondents, the Ministry of Railway and Northern Railway, contended that the applicant was never formally appointed as Chief Office Superintendent, there was no vacancy for the post during the alleged period, and the order assigning him the duties was not issued by a competent authority nor was it part of the Personnel Department's records.

They asserted that the office of the General Manager (Operations) was not competent to assign such additional duties and there was no sanctioned post of Chief Office Superintendent in that office.

Whether the applicant was effectively working as a Chief Office Superintendent from February 1, 2013, until his retirement, entitling him to the pay scale and designation of Chief Office Superintendent with consequential benefits.

The court considered the principles enshrined in FR 49-1 and DOP&T OM dated August 8, 2018, which outline the conditions for an employee to receive additional pay for holding full charge of a higher post.

Specifically, the DOP&T OM states that an employee formally appointed to hold full charge of a higher post, in addition to their own, is entitled to either the pay of the higher post or 10% of their present basic pay as Additional Post Allowance.

The tribunal also implicitly applied the principles regarding the requirement of formal appointment, competent authority, and availability of a vacant sanctioned post for a claim of higher designation and pay to be valid.

The court found that the documents produced by the applicant, while indicating a de facto assumption of duties, did not establish a formal appointment by the competent authority or the existence of a vacant sanctioned post.

The order dated February 1, 2013, assigning work to the applicant, was deemed to be without appropriate approval from the Personnel Department, which is the sole authority for deployment and promotions.

The respondents categorically denied the existence of a vacant Chief Office Superintendent post in the General Manager (Operations) office during the relevant period.

Furthermore, the Personnel Department explicitly questioned the competence under which the applicant was allowed such a "dual charge".

The court held that the applicant's internal office documents were of "little relevance" without proper sanction and assignment by the Personnel Department of Northern Railway.

Therefore, the conditions stipulated in FR 49-1 and the DOP&T OM for receiving higher pay for additional charge were not met due to the lack of formal appointment by a competent authority against a sanctioned vacant post.

The court concluded that the applicant's claim that he was working on the post of Chief Office Superintendent could not be accepted because the position was not duly sanctioned, and the applicant was not assigned the duty of a higher post by the competent authority (Personnel Department).

No order was made as to costs.