### Entrustment of Additional Charge Does Not Amount to Formal Appointment for Claiming Honorarium under Government Resolution.

The petitioner, a retired Additional District Judge, was appointed as Joint Registrar and Member, Board of Nominees, Vadodara, on 07.12.2018, subject to specific Government Resolutions (GRs).

During his tenure, he was entrusted with the "additional charge" of various other Boards of Nominees at Ahmedabad, Valsad, Anand, Surat, Nadiad, and Mehsana due to administrative exigencies.

The petitioner claimed "charge allowance" (honorarium) for these additional duties under Clause 9 of the GR dated 10.11.2014.

The State Government rejected this claim on 03.11.2021, leading to the present writ petition.

1. Whether a retired Judge discharging duties in various Boards of Nominees by way of "additional charge" is entitled to charge allowance/honorarium under Clause 9 of the Government Resolution dated 10.11.2014.

Clause 9 of the Government Resolution dated 10.11.2014, which provides that if a retired Judge is "appointed" to one or more Boards, Tribunals, or Committees in addition to their "original appointment," they are entitled to an honorarium of 25% of the monthly amount receivable under the "Pay minus Pension" formula.

The court applied the rule of literal construction, holding that legal benefits predicated on a formal "appointment" cannot be extended to mere "additional charge" arrangements.

The court analyzed the plain language of Clause 9, noting the repeated and specific use of the terms "appointed" and "appointment other than the original appointment".

The court reasoned that the benefit of honorarium is strictly conditional upon a formal, independent appointment order to an additional office.

The court concluded that an order of additional charge cannot be equated with an order of appointment as contemplated by the GR.

In the present case, the petitioner had only one formal appointment (Vadodara); his duties at other locations were assigned as "additional charge" for administrative convenience or as stop-gap arrangements.

The High Court upheld the State's rejection order dated 03.11.2021 and dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit. Rule discharged.