Once a competent authority grants unconditional pay benefits under FR 49(i), they cannot be reduced by retrospectively invoking FR 35.

The respondent, a Deputy Technical Advisor (DTA), was promoted to Joint Technical Advisor (JTA) on an ad hoc basis in September 2007.

From October 1, 2007, until his superannuation on October 31, 2008, he was directed to perform the additional duties of Technical Advisor (TA).

The Minister of State granting ex post facto approval for pay fixation under FR 49(i), and a previous Division Bench judgment in WP(C) 6736/2010 directing the petitioner to grant said benefits.

The petitioner issued an order on December 24, 2014, making the pay fixation subject to the restrictions of FR 35, resulting in the respondent receiving the pay of a JTA instead of a TA for the period he held the additional charge.

The respondent challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 4230/2016, which ruled in his favor; the Union of India challenged the CAT's order in the present writ petition.

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to the unconditional benefit of pay fixation under FR 49(i) for the period he held additional charge of the higher post of Technical Advisor.

2. Whether the petitioner could unilaterally subject the grant of FR 49(i) benefits to the restrictions of FR 35 after a conclusive judicial direction to the contrary.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 49(i), which allows a government servant formally appointed to hold full charge of a higher post, in addition to their ordinary duties, to receive the pay admissible as if they were appointed to officiate in that higher post.

FR 35, which allows the Competent Authority to reduce officiating pay.

Principle of Res Judicata/Judicial Finality, holding that executive rules cannot be used to negate or re-write specific directions issued by a Court in a previous inter-party litigation.

The Court observed that the issue of pay fixation was already settled by a Division Bench in December 2013, which directed the petitioner to grant the respondent the pay of the TA post.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that they could invoke the caveat under FR 35 to reduce the pay, reasoning that since the original approval by the Minister of State was unconditional and the subsequent Court direction was "clear and unambiguous," the petitioner had no authority to retrospectively apply FR 35.

The Court characterized the petitioner’s action as an attempt to "re-write" a judicial order and negate the benefit already granted by the Bench; consequently, reliance on administrative discretion under FR 35 was found to be impermissible in light of the specific judicial mandate.

The petitioner was directed to disburse all arrears of pay and revised retiral benefits within six weeks, failing which an interest rate of 12% per annum would apply; the matter was listed for compliance on August 21, 2026.