Verified actual service warrants admissible remuneration despite delayed formal appointment; notional appointment alone does not confer arrears.

An advertisement dated 22.03.2006 invited applications for 75 Class-IV posts in District Rajouri. The applicants participated in the selection process, which was subsequently re-conducted pursuant to Government Order No. 664-GAD of 2013.

Following litigation concerning the selection process, the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri issued a select list on 26.04.2021 containing the applicants’ names for Class-IV posts in the Sericulture Development Department.

The applicants submitted joining reports on 14.05.2021 and 15.05.2021 and claimed that they thereafter performed duties under the Department. Applicant No. 1 additionally relied upon his deployment at a COVID-19 vaccination centre pursuant to official directions.

When salary was not paid, the applicants approached the Tribunal in an earlier proceeding. The respondents thereafter passed a speaking order rejecting the claim on the ground that no formal appointment orders had been issued and that the applicants were not borne on the Department’s establishment.

Subsequently, Order No. 916/DS/JK/2023 dated 11.02.2023 sanctioned their appointment as Class-IV employees on a regular temporary basis, notionally from their respective dates of joining but with monetary benefits only from 11.02.2023.

The applicants challenged the denial of salary for the period from their joining dates until 10.02.2023.

Whether the applicants were entitled to salary or wages for the period from 14.05.2021/15.05.2021 to 10.02.2023 merely because their appointments were subsequently given notional effect from their respective joining dates?

Whether the applicants were entitled to remuneration for any period during which they could establish, from contemporaneous official records, that they had actually discharged duties under the respondents?

Whether Order No. 916/DS/JK/2023 was liable to be interfered with insofar as it restricted monetary benefits to 11.02.2023?

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

The Tribunal applied the principle that mere inclusion in a select list or submission of a joining report, without a formal appointment order issued by the competent authority, does not automatically create an indefeasible right to salary against a Government post.

It further distinguished retrospective monetary benefits arising solely from a notional appointment from remuneration for work actually performed under the authority and control of the employer.

A notional appointment does not, by itself, entitle an employee to salary for the entire anterior period; however, a public authority cannot deny remuneration for duties actually taken from and performed by an individual merely because formal appointment processes were delayed.

Actual service must be established through contemporaneous official records, including attendance registers, duty rosters, deployment orders, relieving orders and movement records.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ subsequent notional appointment did not automatically confer a right to full salary from their joining dates, particularly because the Sericulture Department had not issued formal appointment orders during the relevant period and had questioned its involvement in the selection process.

Nevertheless, the applicants specifically alleged that they had been permitted to work, and the official deployment of Applicant No. 1 at a COVID-19 vaccination centre was considered material evidence requiring examination.

Applying the distinction between notional service benefits and remuneration for actual work, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ objection regarding the absence of formal appointment could not, by itself, defeat a claim for wages for duties actually performed.

Since the record before the Tribunal did not establish the duration or continuity of duties performed by either applicant, a blanket direction for payment of full salary for the entire period was considered unwarranted.

The competent authority was therefore directed to verify each applicant’s actual service separately from the original departmental records.

The applicants’ appointments under Order No. 916/DS/JK/2023 dated 11.02.2023, including the notional effect from their respective joining dates, were maintained.

However, the restriction of monetary benefits to 11.02.2023 was held not to be an absolute bar to payment for any earlier period during which actual duties were established.

The competent authority was directed to examine the official records and determine separately the period of actual duty performed by Applicant No. 1 from 14.05.2021 and Applicant No. 2 from 15.05.2021 until 10.02.2023.

Salary or wages admissible under the applicable rules were to be released for verified periods of actual duty, after adjustment of any amounts already paid; no monetary benefit was payable for periods unsupported by official records.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.