In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that an employee who serves in a higher position based on official orders is entitled to the corresponding salary, even if later found ineligible for that role. The division bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay, delivered this judgment while addressing a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision. The CAT had directed that the respondent receive the pay associated with the higher cadre during his officiation, along with all consequential benefits, including pension fixation.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated when the postal department sought to recover payments made to K. Murthy, the respondent, alleging erroneous pay fixation during his tenure as Assistant Post Master (Accounts) and his officiation as Higher Selection Grade-I (HSG-I) Postmaster. The department contended that Murthy had not completed the mandatory three-year service in the HSG-II grade, rendering him ineligible for HSG-I pay during his officiation. Challenging this stance, Murthy approached the CAT, which ruled in his favor, prompting the postal department to file the present writ petition before the High Court.
High Court's Analysis and Judgment
The High Court examined precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, notably referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair. These cases established that eligibility criteria for regular promotions should not be applied to deny the salary for periods during which an employee officiates in a higher post. The bench emphasized that when an employee is appointed to officiate in a higher position by competent authorities, they are entitled to the pay and benefits of that position for the duration of their officiation, regardless of later determinations of ineligibility.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment underscores the principle that employees should not be penalized for administrative oversights, especially when they have fulfilled the duties of a higher position based on official directives. It reinforces the notion that remuneration should correspond to the responsibilities undertaken, ensuring fairness and equity in employment practices. The ruling also serves as a precedent for similar cases, highlighting that subsequent findings of ineligibility do not negate the entitlement to appropriate compensation for work already performed.
Conclusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision reaffirms the rights of employees who, acting on official orders, assume higher responsibilities. By upholding the CAT's directive for appropriate pay and benefits during the officiation period, the court has reinforced the legal stance that eligibility criteria for regular promotions should not retroactively affect compensation for duties already executed. This ruling contributes to the broader discourse on employee rights and administrative accountability within public service sectors.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.