Employer has authority to assign additional duties in public interest without altering substantive service conditions.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Horticulture Assistant in 2017 and subsequently promoted to the post of Technical Officer/Grade-III (Horticulture) in 2024 at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

On 06.02.2026, the respondents issued an order assigning her additional duties related to the Government E-Marketplace (GeM), UTR updation, and MSME payment tracking within the purchase section

The applicant challenged this order, contending that these duties were administrative and financial in nature, for which she lacked the requisite qualifications and which were unrelated to her technical specialization in horticulture

The respondents maintained that the duties were routine institutional tasks necessitated by manpower constraints and that the applicant's core technical responsibilities and service conditions remained unchanged

1. Whether the assignment of additional duties relating to GeM, UTR, and MSME payments to a technical officer is arbitrary, illegal, or beyond the administrative authority of the employer

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Section 19 regarding the review of administrative actions

It relied on Fundamental Rule 11 and the specific terms of the applicant's appointment and promotion letters, which stipulate that employees are liable to perform "other duties" as assigned in the public interest

The court also referenced the CSIR bylaws granting the Director authority to allocate work for institutional efficiency

the Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) governing the evaluation of technical personnel

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's cadre, designation, pay, and seniority remained unaffected by the impugned order

The court reasoned that an employer possesses the inherent power to allocate work for the efficient functioning of an organization, particularly when the terms of appointment explicitly permit the assignment of "other duties"

The Tribunal found that the assigned tasks—GeM and MSME coordination—were routine, computer-based institutional functions that did not require specialized training or involve independent financial sanctioning power

It further observed that the applicant had not been divested of her primary horticulture responsibilities and that the respondents had clarified her performance assessment under the MANAS scheme would remain based on her technical contributions

The court concluded that the assignment was a valid exercise of administrative discretion prompted by manpower constraints and public interest

The Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit