Overtime allowance requires proof of work beyond prescribed weekly hours.

The applicant, originally employed as a Goods Guard, was medically decategorized and posted as a Senior Clerk in the Operating Department on 13 June 2014.

He was subsequently attached to the Store Section under the Guard Supervisor by order dated 29 February 2016.

Claiming that he was required to work six days a week, unlike other ministerial staff who worked five days, he sought rest-day/overtime allowance for the period from 13 August 2014 to 30 November 2019.

His representation dated 10 April 2016 was rejected, and the Pension Adalat also declined his claim on 3 December 2020.

In an earlier OA, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents thereafter passed the impugned order dated 10 February 2022 rejecting the claim, which was challenged in the present proceedings.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to overtime or rest-day allowance on the ground that he allegedly worked six days a week after being posted to the Store Section.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 10 February 2022, passed pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier directions, was liable to be quashed for failure to properly consider the applicant’s claim.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Entitlement to overtime allowance must be established by proof that the employee worked beyond the prescribed weekly hours or was required to work on a rest day without compensatory rest.

The respondents’ position that ministerial staff were required to work 40 hours per week, and that no work beyond those hours had been taken from the applicant, was accepted in the absence of contrary evidence.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been posted to the Store Section and that he claimed to have worked six days a week.

However, the decisive question was whether he had actually worked beyond the prescribed 40-hour week or had been compelled to work on a rest day without compensatory rest.

The respondents specifically denied that any work beyond the prescribed weekly hours had been taken and stated that Saturday had been granted as a rest day after the applicant’s representation.

The applicant produced no documentary or other material demonstrating excess hours, compulsory work on a rest day, or denial of compensatory rest.

The Tribunal therefore held that the mere fact of his posting under the Guard Supervisor in the Store Section did not establish overtime work.

It further found that the impugned order had been passed after considering the applicant’s representation and legal notice in compliance with the earlier Tribunal order, and no sufficient ground for interference was made out.

The impugned order dated 10 February 2022 was upheld, the Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

All associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.