Substantive appointee to lower post cannot claim higher pay scale without formal appointment or charge allowance.

The Respondent was appointed as a Research Assistant (RA) at the Petitioner Institute (NIPCCD) in 1989/1990

While serving as an RA, she claimed she was discharging the duties of a Deputy Director (DD) and sought the corresponding pay scale

She was subsequently directly recruited as a Joint Director (JD) and briefly promoted as Assistant Director (AD) on an ad-hoc basis in 2011, which she accepted without protest

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via the impugned order dated 09.01.2014, directed the Petitioners to pay her the emoluments of a DD from 26.09.1990 on the principle of "equal pay for equal work," despite her never being formally appointed to that post

Pursuant to a Supreme Court interim order, the Petitioners paid the Respondent ₹20,00,000/- subject to the outcome of this writ petition

1. Whether an employee substantively appointed to a lower post is entitled to the pay scale of a higher post merely by claiming to perform supervisory duties without a formal appointment order.

2. Whether the principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be invoked to equate the pay scales of two distinct hierarchical posts like Research Assistant and Deputy Director.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 49, which stipulates that higher pay is only permissible when a government servant is formally appointed to hold charge of a higher post

Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India, which held that discharging duties of a higher post as a stop-gap arrangement does not entitle an officer to the salary of that post, only a "charge allowance"

Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India, establishing that pay scales are determined by complex factors including skill, responsibility, and recruitment methods, rather than simple task comparison

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, though its protections were limited by the specific directions of the Supreme Court in this case (regarding recovery of dues)

The Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning fundamentally flawed as it lacked material evidence to prove the Respondent performed the specific job profile of a DD

The Court noted that all official records and the Respondent’s own acceptance of her promotion to AD confirmed her status as an RA during the disputed period

Legally, the Court observed that "equal pay for equal work" is a doctrine intended to rectify pay disparities between similar posts, not to bypass recruitment rules by granting a subordinate the pay of a superior officer

Since there was no formal order under FR 49 appointing the Respondent to the post of DD, the Court held she had no legal right to that salary

The Court further noted that even if supervisory work was extracted, it does not ipso facto entitle an employee to a higher grade pay in the absence of a substantive appointment

It held that the Respondent was never appointed as a DD and thus had no entitlement to its pay or emoluments

Consequently, the Respondent is directed to refund the ₹20,00,000/- previously paid to her under the Supreme Court's interim order. However, the Court permitted her to repay this amount in ten bi-monthly instalments of ₹2,00,000/- each, starting from July 31, 2026