Employee discharging duties of higher post on ad hoc basis is entitled to higher pay scale.

The Respondent, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), was assigned "current duty charge" of the post of Superintendent on 18.05.2005.

Subsequently, on 31.08.2005, he was granted an ad hoc promotion to the same post in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500.

Later, on 31.08.2007, he was again assigned current duty charge for the higher post of AO/AAC.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the MCD to pay the difference in wages for the higher post effective from 18.05.2005, relying on Selveraj v. Lt. Governor of Islands.

The High Court initially set aside this CAT order on 07.05.2013.

The Respondent filed a review petition in 2018 with a delay of 1665 days, citing medical reasons and family bereavements.

1. Whether the delay of 1665 days in filing the review petition should be condoned given the petitioner’s medical and personal circumstances.

2. Whether an employee is entitled to the pay scale of a higher post when they are discharging the duties and responsibilities of that post on an ad hoc or "current duty charge" basis.

The Court primarily applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 49, which regulates the pay of an individual asked to officiate on a temporary or independent basis in a post of higher responsibility, mandating that they be allowed the pay admissible to that higher post.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Selveraj v. Lt. Governor of Islands, Portblair & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 291 and BSNL v. S.N. Paracer & Ors., WP(C) 8122/2011, which established that as long as an individual discharges the functions of a higher post, they must be paid the salary prescribed for that post, regardless of the nomenclature of the arrangement (e.g., "look-after" or "current duty").

The Court analyzed that while the initial order of 18.05.2005 was for "current duty charge," the subsequent Office Order dated 31.08.2005 explicitly granted the Respondent an ad hoc promotion in the higher pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500.

The Court noted its previous error in failing to consider the 31.08.2005 order, which created a clear entitlement to the higher pay scale.

Following the principle in S.N. Paracer, the Court reasoned that the Respondent performed the duties of a Superintendent and later AO/AAC (which carried an equivalent scale); therefore, under FR 49, the Petitioner was legally bound to pay the salary attached to those responsibilities.

The Court distinguished the period of "current duty charge" (pre-August 2005) from the formal ad hoc promotion, limiting the entitlement to the date the higher scale was officially assigned via the promotion order.

It held that the Respondent is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 effective from 31.08.2005 (the date of ad hoc promotion) rather than 18.05.2005.

The Court dismissed the MCD's writ petition and directed the Petitioners to pay the arrears with interest at 6% per annum within three months.