Employees actually discharging higher-post duties may claim corresponding pay differences despite lacking formal promotion.

The applicants were substantive Group ‘D’ employees of the Railway Administration, appointed as Parcel Porters pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court.

They claimed that, for substantial periods, they were assigned and actually performed the duties of higher Group ‘C’ posts, including Booking Clerk, Parcel Clerk and Shift In-charge/Batch Prabhari, under the supervision of Railway authorities.

The applicants relied, inter alia, upon Private Cash Registers and UTS Roll Registers to establish that they performed booking, parcel and cash-related duties for several years.

The respondents contended that the applicants’ deployment to such duties was temporary, occasioned by staff shortages and exigencies of work, and did not amount to regular appointment or promotion to the higher posts.

During arguments, the applicants did not press their claim for regularization against the higher posts; the Tribunal therefore considered only their claim for higher pay and allowances for the period during which they allegedly performed the higher duties.

1. Whether employees substantively appointed to Group ‘D’ posts are entitled to the pay and allowances attached to higher Group ‘C’ posts when they were actually utilized to discharge the duties and responsibilities of those posts for substantial periods?

2. Whether the absence of formal appointment, promotion or regularization to the higher posts defeats the applicants’ claim for financial benefits for the period during which they actually performed the higher duties?

3. Whether the respondents should verify the official records and determine, applicant-wise, the periods during which substantially similar higher duties were performed before calculating any differential pay?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was filed.

It relied principally on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC (L&S), which recognizes that temporary employees performing duties and responsibilities substantially similar to those of regular employees holding the corresponding post may claim wages at least equivalent to the minimum of the applicable regular pay scale, subject to proof of functional parity.

The Tribunal also relied on Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor, Port Blair, (1998) 4 SCC 291, as applied in Uma Kant Pandey v. Union of India, for the principle that an employee who actually performs the duties of a higher post in an officiating capacity cannot be denied the salary attached to that post merely because formal promotion was not granted.

The decision in A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters Union v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 433 of 1998, was distinguished: although it permitted utilization of Parcel Porters for other manual work according to administrative requirements, it did not authorize the Railway Administration to take work involving the duties and responsibilities of a higher post without considering the corresponding pay.

The principle of “equal pay for equal work” was therefore treated as applicable only upon proof that the duties and responsibilities actually performed were substantially the same as those of the corresponding higher post.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicants’ claim for higher pay from a claim for regular appointment or promotion.

Since regularization was not pressed, the fact that the applicants continued to hold Group ‘D’ posts did not, by itself, answer whether they were entitled to payment for higher duties actually performed.

The applicants had relied on official registers and asserted that they had been entrusted with booking, parcel, cash-handling and shift-in-charge responsibilities for extended periods.

These materials required examination rather than summary rejection of the claim.

Applying Jagjit Singh and the principle concerning officiating performance of higher duties, the Tribunal held that formal promotion was not an absolute precondition to consideration of differential pay.

However, entitlement could not be presumed solely from the nomenclature of the post or the applicants’ assertions; the Railway Administration had to verify the actual nature of work, the period of deployment, the degree of functional similarity and the applicable pay scale for each applicant.

The respondents were directed to examine each applicant’s claim separately on the basis of duty records, registers, orders and other official records, and to determine the period during which the applicant actually performed substantially the same duties and responsibilities as a Booking Clerk, Parcel Clerk or Shift In-charge/Batch Prabhari.

If such performance was established, the respondents were directed to calculate and pay the difference between the pay actually drawn and the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the corresponding higher post, together with admissible allowances.

The exercise was to be completed, after giving the applicants an opportunity of hearing and to produce documents, within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The payable amount was to carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application until actual payment.

No order as to costs was made, and the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.