Employees performing higher duties are entitled to corresponding pay, despite expiry of their ad hoc promotion.

The applicant, an employee of the Department of Posts, was promoted from Postmaster Grade-I to Postmaster Grade-II on an ad hoc basis for eleven months by order dated 10 June 2016.

The promotion order expressly provided that the ad hoc arrangement would confer no right to regular absorption and would not count towards seniority or other service benefits.

After expiry of the eleven-month period, the applicant continued to discharge the duties of Postmaster Grade-II until he was promoted to that post on a regular basis by order dated 12 October 2017, with effect from joining the cadre on 17 October 2017.

The respondents subsequently reduced his pay from ₹44,900 to ₹41,100 and ordered recovery of alleged excess payments made during the intervening period between expiry of the ad hoc promotion and the regular promotion.

The applicant contended that he had continued to perform the duties of the higher post and that the recovery was ordered without prior hearing.

He also sought counting of his ad hoc service towards regular service, seniority and promotion, and parity with officials in other Postal Circles who had received regular promotions under the one-time relaxation granted by the Department of Posts.

The respondents argued that the applicant did not satisfy the prescribed qualifying-service requirement for regular promotion.

The one-time relaxation dated 28 April 2016 permitted relaxation of less than one year, whereas relaxation exceeding one year and up to 50% of the prescribed qualifying service could result only in an ad hoc, non-regular promotion.

1. Whether the respondents could reduce the applicant’s pay and recover the amount paid for the period during which he continued to perform the duties of Postmaster Grade-II after expiry of his ad hoc promotion and before his regular promotion

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to have his ad hoc service as Postmaster Grade-II counted towards regular service, seniority and promotion

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to parity with employees of other Postal Circles who were granted regular promotion under the Department’s one-time relaxation of qualifying service

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in the context of duties actually discharged, holding that when an employer consciously obtains an employee’s services on a higher post and extracts work involving higher duties and responsibilities, the corresponding monetary benefits cannot ordinarily be denied.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Gangadhar Prusty, judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 7 May 2026, for the proposition that ad hoc promotion may not confer a right to regularisation or substantive promotion, but cannot be used to deny financial benefits attached to the post actually held and worked against.

Under the Department of Posts’ communication dated 28 April 2016, the normal qualifying service for promotion from Postmaster Grade-I to Postmaster Grade-II was six years.

The one-time relaxation was subject to the conditions that relaxation of less than one year could support regular promotion, while relaxation of more than one year and up to 50% of the prescribed qualifying service would result in a promotion not treated as regular.

The Tribunal also applied the binding effect of the express terms of the ad hoc and regular promotion orders, including the stipulation that ad hoc service would not count for regular service, seniority or promotion.

The Tribunal found from the respondents’ letter dated 14 November 2017 that the applicant continued to perform the duties and responsibilities of Postmaster Grade-II even after the eleven-month ad hoc period had expired.

Applying the principle in Gangadhar Prusty, it held that the respondents could not retain the benefit of the applicant’s higher-level work while denying the financial benefits attached to that post; consequently, the reduction of pay and recovery relating to the intervening period could not be sustained.

However, the Tribunal distinguished financial entitlement from service-status consequences.

The applicant’s ad hoc appointment was expressly limited to eleven months and excluded regular absorption, seniority and related benefits.

Further, the regular promotion order specifically stated that regular service in Grade-II would be counted only from the date of regular joining and that past ad hoc service would not count for seniority or promotion.

Since the applicant accepted both orders without challenging their conditions, he could not later seek the benefit of counting the ad hoc period while retaining the benefits of the regular promotion order.

The parity claim also failed because the applicant was not similarly situated to the employees in Bihar, Orissa, Delhi and Gujarat.

On 10 June 2016, he had not completed five years of regular service in Grade-I and therefore required more than one year’s relaxation, attracting the condition that his promotion could not be treated as regular.

The officials relied upon by him were promoted later, after completing at least five years of regular service, and required less than one year’s relaxation, making their cases materially different.

The Tribunal further held that the one-time relaxation could not be invoked again after the applicant had already received the benefit of an ad hoc promotion under it.

The applicant was entitled to the financial benefits attached to the post of Postmaster Grade-II for the period during which he continued to discharge its duties after expiry of the ad hoc period and before his regular promotion; the respondents could not reduce his pay or recover the corresponding amount merely on the ground that the ad hoc period had expired.

The claims for counting ad hoc service towards regular service, seniority and promotion were rejected because of the express conditions in the ad hoc and regular promotion orders.

The claim for parity with employees of other Postal Circles was also rejected because the applicant was not similarly situated and had required more than the permissible one-year relaxation.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.