Employees are entitled to higher-post minimum pay when verified duties substantially match that post.

The applicant was appointed as a Peon-cum-Porter, a Group ‘D’ post, in 1993.

She alleged that she was directed to perform the duties of a Booking Clerk/Platform Ticket Distributor, a Group ‘C’ post, from 20 January 2015, while continuing to receive the pay of her substantive post.

The respondents admitted that she performed the duties of a Platform Ticket Distributor, but contended that this was only an adjustment of work and that she had not been formally appointed to the higher post.

A disciplinary proceeding had also been taken against her in connection with those duties.

The applicant sought the difference in pay and allowances for the period of higher duties.

She relied on a prior CAT decision concerning employees performing Group ‘C’ duties.

1. Whether an employee appointed to a Group ‘D’ post is entitled to additional pay where directed to perform the duties of a corresponding Group ‘C’ post without formal appointment to that post.

2. Whether entitlement to any pay difference depends on verification that the applicant actually performed substantially the same duties and responsibilities as the higher post, and, if so, how that difference should be calculated.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and relied on its decision in Dinesh Kumar Yadav and Others v. Union of India and Others, OA No. 640/2019, which relied in turn on Uma Kant Pandey v. Union of India and 3 Others, Writ-A No. 6079 of 2025, and Mohd. Nizam v. Union of India and Others, OA No. 510/2017.

The rule applied was that an employee who is found to have actually performed substantially the same duties and responsibilities as a corresponding higher post may be entitled, for the verified period, to the difference between the pay received and the minimum of the higher post’s pay scale, together with admissible allowances.

The Tribunal treated the respondents’ admission that the applicant had been directed to perform the duties of a Group ‘C’ post as material, but did not regard that admission alone as establishing the amount payable or the precise period of entitlement.

Following its earlier decision, it held that the claim should be assessed against the actual duties and responsibilities performed, using the Railway Administration’s duty records, registers, orders and other available records.

Thus, the absence of a formal appointment did not foreclose the claim, but payment depended on verification that the work performed was substantially equivalent to that of the corresponding higher post.

If substantial equivalence is established, the respondents must pay the difference between the pay actually drawn and the minimum of the applicable higher-post pay scale, together with admissible allowances.

The exercise and consequential orders must be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Interest is payable at the rate applicable to GPF deposits, from the filing of the Original Application until payment.

No order was made as to costs.