Higher-post pay under FR 49 requires appointment; performing the duties alone does not confer entitlement.

The applicant, a Private Secretary deputed to the CAG’s office, claimed that he performed the duties of a Principal Private Secretary (PPS) from 1 May 2014 until his retirement on 31 August 2017, while remaining posted and paid as a Private Secretary. He sought pay fixation and related benefits for that period, relying on his representations and the duties he performed.

The respondents stated that his request for ad hoc PPS appointment had been rejected because he did not meet the Recruitment Rules’ maximum age limit of 56 years, and that he had not been appointed under FR 49 to discharge the duties of a higher post. The applicant did not challenge the rejection order dated 26 June 2015 or the subsequent decision dated 1 February 2018 refusing FR 49 benefits.

Whether the applicant was entitled to PPS pay and related benefits for the period in which he claimed to have performed PPS duties, despite not having been appointed to the PPS post.

Whether the applicant could obtain the claimed relief when the relevant rejection decisions had not been challenged in the O.A.

The Tribunal considered FR 49(i) and (iii), under which the applicant sought financial benefits for holding or discharging the duties of a higher post; the respondents’ position was that no appointment under those provisions had been made.

It also considered the applicable Recruitment Rules for PPS, including the prescribed maximum age of 56 years for deputationists, which had been relied on to reject the applicant’s request for ad hoc appointment.

The Tribunal’s reasoning required an entitlement grounded in the applicable rules or a formal appointment; performance of duties, without such an appointment or other demonstrated rule-based entitlement, did not establish a right to PPS pay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s deputation order appointed him to work as a Private Secretary and specified the pay and allowances applicable to that deputation.

Although he relied on the duties described in the relevant O.M. and asserted that he had performed PPS functions, he did not establish under the Recruitment Rules that those duties entitled him to ad hoc PPS appointment or PPS pay.

The record also showed that his request for ad hoc appointment had been rejected on the age-limit ground and that his request for FR 49 benefits had been refused because no appointment to a higher post, or order under FR 49, had been made.

Neither decision was challenged in the O.A.; the Tribunal further noted that the asserted comparison with another officer had not been pleaded in the application.

It dismissed the O.A. as devoid of merit, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.