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

The applicants, three postal employees holding the post of Postmaster Grade-I, were promoted to Postmaster Grade-II on an ad hoc basis for eleven months by order dated 10 June 2016, pursuant to a one-time relaxation of the prescribed qualifying service. The promotion order expressly stated that the ad hoc service would not confer a right of regular absorption or count towards seniority or other service benefits.

The applicants joined the ad hoc post in July 2016 and completed the eleven-month period between May and June 2017. After a gap of approximately four months, they were promoted to Postmaster Grade-II on a regular basis by order dated 12 October 2017, with regular service directed to be counted only from the date of regular joining.

Although the applicants continued to discharge the duties of Postmaster Grade-II after expiry of the ad hoc period and until their regular promotion, the respondents subsequently reduced their pay from approximately ₹44,900 to ₹41,100 and ordered recovery of the alleged excess payment made during the intervening period.

The applicants approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking restoration of pay, refund/non-recovery of amounts, counting of ad hoc service for regular service, seniority and promotion, and parity with employees in other Postal Circles.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to retain the pay and allowances attached to the post of Postmaster Grade-II for the period during which, after expiry of their ad hoc promotion, they continued to perform the duties and responsibilities of that post?

2. Whether the period of ad hoc service as Postmaster Grade-II could be counted as regular service for the purposes of pay, seniority and future promotion?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to treatment similar to employees in other Postal Circles who had received regular promotion to Postmaster Grade-II under the one-time relaxation scheme?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It applied the applicable Recruitment Rules prescribing six years of regular service in the Postmaster Grade-I cadre for promotion to Postmaster Grade-II, together with the Department of Posts’ letter dated 28 April 2016 permitting a one-time relaxation: relaxation of less than one year could support regular promotion, whereas relaxation of more than one year and up to 50% of the prescribed qualifying service would result in promotion being treated as non-regular/ad hoc.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that an employee who is consciously required to perform the duties and responsibilities of a higher post cannot be denied the monetary benefits attached to that post, relying on Union of India v. Gangadhar Prusty, judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 7 May 2026.

Conversely, it applied the settled principle that ad hoc service does not count towards seniority or regular service where the governing promotion order expressly excludes such benefits and the employee accepts the order’s terms.

As to pay, the Tribunal found that the respondents had continued to obtain the applicants’ services on the higher post even after expiry of the eleven-month ad hoc period. Applying the principle of payment for the higher duties actually performed, it held that the corresponding monetary benefits could not be denied merely because the formal ad hoc period had ended.

The subsequent reduction in pay and recovery of amounts relating to that period were therefore unsustainable to the extent that the applicants had in fact continued to discharge the duties of Postmaster Grade-II.

As to counting of service, the Tribunal relied on the express terms of both the ad hoc promotion order dated 10 June 2016 and the regular promotion order dated 12 October 2017. Those orders stated that the ad hoc period would not confer a right of regular absorption and would not count for seniority, regular service or promotion.

The applicants had accepted the orders and joined without challenging those conditions. Further, they were not eligible for regular promotion on 10 June 2016 because they required more than one year’s relaxation in the prescribed qualifying service; consequently, their promotion was validly treated as ad hoc under clause 3(iii) of the relaxation letter.

The claim for parity with employees in Bihar, Odisha, Delhi and Gujarat was rejected because those employees had completed at least five years of regular service in the Postmaster Grade-I cadre when they were promoted. They therefore required less than one year’s relaxation and could be granted regular promotion under clause 3(ii), unlike the applicants, who had not completed five years of regular service when their ad hoc promotions were made.

The Tribunal further held that the one-time relaxation could not be invoked again to convert the applicants’ earlier ad hoc promotion into regular promotion after they subsequently completed the requisite period.

However, the Tribunal rejected the claim to count the ad hoc service towards regular service, seniority or promotion because of the express conditions of the promotion orders and the applicants’ ineligibility for regular promotion at the relevant time.

It also rejected the claim for parity with employees of other Postal Circles, finding that the applicants were not similarly situated.

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