GDS employees officiating in MTS posts are entitled to the difference in salary for the period served.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier (GDS MC) in 1997, was directed by orders dated 05.03.2012 and 07.03.2012 to work as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at Bahadurganj Sub Post Office

He worked in this capacity from 13.03.2012 until 02.01.2015, after which he was reverted to his original GDS post

During this period, he was paid the lower salary (TRCA) applicable to GDS rather than the MTS scale

The applicant’s representation for salary differences and absorption was rejected on 12.09.2016, on the grounds that his attachment was a temporary arrangement and he had not undergone formal selection

During the pendency of this litigation, the applicant was formally absorbed into the MTS cadre on 24.01.2023 after clearing a departmental examination

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the difference in salary for the period he performed the duties of an MTS in an officiating/attachment capacity.

2. Whether the applicant has a right to be absorbed into the MTS cadre solely based on his temporary service in that capacity.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the adjudication of service disputes

It relied on Departmental Policy and Recruitment Rules, which dictate that promotion from GDS to MTS is governed by seniority-cum-fitness or departmental competitive examinations

Furthermore, the Tribunal prioritized the principle of "quantum meruit" or equitable compensation, noting that since an MTS works eight hours compared to the four-to-five-hour workload of a GDS, the employee is entitled to remuneration commensurate with the higher duties actually performed

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ own orders dated 05.03.2012 and 07.03.2012 explicitly directed the applicant to work "as MTS" rather than merely performing GDS duties at a different location

The respondents' contention that the applicant signed charge reports as "GDS" was dismissed because his substantive post remained GDS while he officiated in a higher capacity

Regarding absorption, the Tribunal held that temporary officiating does not grant a legal right to permanent status, as such appointments must follow prescribed procedures

However, since the applicant actually performed the full eight-hour duties of an MTS for nearly three years, the Tribunal found the denial of the corresponding salary scale to be unjustified

The subsequent formal promotion of the applicant in 2023 rendered the relief for absorption moot but validated his qualifications for the post

The Tribunal partly allowed the Original Application. The Tribunal quashed the impugned rejection order dated 12.09.2016 and directed the respondents to pay the difference between the MTS salary and the TRCA actually paid for the period from 13.03.2012 to 02.01.2015 within three months