http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MOHD. SWALEH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1997

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.      The appellant  has filed  this appeal against the order of  the   Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Jodhpur  Bench Jodhpur dated  4.5.1995 dismissing  O.A.  No.  342  of  1994 rejecting the  appellant’s claim for additional remuneration for holding current/additional of a higher post.      The appellant  was working  as Deputy Registrar (Admn.) in the  High Court  of Rajasthan. On 9.3.1988, the Chairman, Central Administrative  Tribunal appointed  the appellant as Deputy Registrar,  on deputation  in the  scale of Rs. 3000- 100-3500-125-4500  initially  for  a  period  of  one  year. Appellant was  relieved in  the High  Court and he joined in the new post on deputation on 29.4.1988.      By an  order dated  29.4.1988, the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, in  exercise of  his powers  under Rule  13 of the Delegation of  Financial Power  Rules, 1978  and as  Head of Department, declared  the appellant Deputy Registrar as Head of the  Office of  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal  at Jodhpur and  directed that  he will  exercise power to incur recurring and  non-recurring contingent  expenditure to  the extent of  Rs. 500/-  for maintenance,  upkeeping, repair of staff cars and miscellaneous expenditure. It was also stated in that  order that  the above  delegation of power would be subject to  the observance  of usual  economy  instructions, provision of  rules  and  regulations  and  availability  of funds.      By another  order  dated  5.5.1988,  the  Vice-Chairman permitted the  appellant to  exercise  all  the  powers  and functions of  Registrar as  envisaged by  Rule 28(3)  of the Central Administrative  Tribunal  (Procedure)  Rules,  1987. This order  was passed  because the post of Registrar of the Tribunal at Jodhpur, at that time, was vacant.      On  30.8.1990   appellant  made  a  representation  for payment  of  additional  remuneration  for  discharging  the duties of  the post of Registrar. Meanwhile, the appellant’s deputation  was  being  extended  from  time  to  time.  The appellant made  a further representation dated 15.3.1991 for additional remuneration.  By an  order dated 20.11.1991, his request was  rejected by  the principal Bench of the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

Administrative Tribunal Delhi stating as follows:-      "In this  connection, attention  is      invited to  F.R. 49  where  it  has      been specifically  mentioned that a      person can  be paid remuneration of      a  higher   post  only   if  he  is      formally appointed to the post with      the  order     of   the   Competent      Authority.  A  section  Officer  of      Deputy Registrar  directed to  hold      the current  charge of  the post of      Deputy              Registrar/Joint      Registrar/Registrar is not entitled      to  additional  pay  as  Appointing      Authority for  all group A posts is      the President of India."      It was  also stated  in that  order that merely because under   Rule    28(3)   of    the   Central   Administrative (Procedure)/Rules,  certain  powers  and  functions  of  the Registrar has been delegated to the appellant on 5.5.1988 by the Chairman/Vice  Chairman, did  not help  and could not be construed as  a formal  appointment to the post as envisaged by F.R. 49.      In other  words, the  Principal Bench,  Delhi,  on  the administrative side,  rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground  that though  the appellant was directed by order of the  Vice-Chairman dated  4.4.1988 to  exercise all power and functions  of the  Registrar as  per Rule  28(3) of  the Central Administrative  Tribunal  (Procedure)  Rules,  1987, that was  not sufficient for purposes of Rule 49 of the F.R. for allowing additional remuneration to the appellant.      When the  appellant moved  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur  on  the  Judicial  Side  by  filing  O.A. No.342/1994  the   said  Jodhpur  Tribunal  by  order  dated 4.5.1995 rejected  the O.A.  and upheld  the    order  dated 20.12.1991 passed  by the  Central Administrative  Tribunal, Principal Bench, on the administrative side.      It is  against this  order dated 4.5.1995 passed on the Judicial Side by the Tribunal Jodhpur that the appellant has preferred this appeal.      In this  appeal,  we  have  heard  the  learned  senior counsel for  the appellant  Shri  Rajinder  Sachar  and  the learned counsel for the Union of India, Ms. Shashi Kiran.      It is  true that the appellant who was on deputation in the  Central   Administrative  Tribunal  Jodhpur  as  Deputy registrar  was   conferred  certain  additional  powers  and functions under  the orders  passed by  the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal,  as stated  above, one  under, Rule  13 of the Delegation of  Financial Power  Rule 1976  and another under Rule  28(3)   of   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.  1987.   The rejection of the appellant’s request for  additional  remuneration  for  discharging  the duties of the Registrar was, however based upon the language and term of Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules.      Now Delegation  of Financial  Power Rules,  1978 do not contain any provision for payment of additional remuneration for performing the function of a higher post. Similarly, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1987 which permit   the    Chairman/Vice-Chairman   of    the   Central Administrative Tribunal to delegate to the Deputy Registrar, any of  the power and functions of the Registrar, any of the powers and  functions of  the Registrar, do not also contain any provision  for payment  of additional  remuneration. The only relevant  provision  in  that  behalf  referred  to  by counsel on  both sides  is Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

it was  in fact  this Rule  that  was  referred  to  by  the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi while rejecting the claim of the appellant for additional remuneration. We shall therefore set  out the  relevant part  of  Rule  40  of  the Fundamental Rules. It read as follows:-      "F.R. 49  - The  Central Government      may appoint  a  government  servant      already  holding   a  post   in   a      substantive     or      officiating      capacity,   to   officiate   as   a      temporary measure,  in one  or more      of other  independent posts  at one      time under  the Government. In such      case,  his   pay  is  regulated  as      follows:-      (1) Where  a government  servant is      formally  appointed  to  hold  full      charge of  the duties  of a  higher      post in  the same office as his own      and  in   the  same  cadre/time  of      promotion,  in   addition  to   his      ordinary  duties,   he   shall   be      allowed the  pay admissible to him,      if he  is appointed to officiate in      the   higher   cost.   Unless   the      competent  authority   reduces  his      officiating pay  under Rule 35: but      no additional  pay shall,  however,      be  allowed   for  performing   the      duties of a lower post;      (ii)...............................      (iii)..............................      (iv)...............................      (v)................................      (vi)...............................      A reading  of Fundamental  Rules 49 makes it clear that the Central  Government can  appoint a government servant to "officiate" in  another post  and in such a case where he is formally appointed  to hold  full charge  of the duties of a higher post  in the  same office  as his own and in the same cadre/time of  promotion -  in  addition  to  this  ordinary duties - he shall be allowed pay admissible to him, as if he is appointed  to officiate  in the  higher post.  Under sub- clause (1)  of Rule  49, it  is therefore,  for the  Central Government to appoint a government servant already holding a post to officiate in another independent post and when he is formally appointed  to hold full charge of the duties of the higher post  in the  same office  as his own and in the same centre/line of  promotion (here, the Registrar) only then he shall be  allowed the  pay admissible  to him,  as if he was appointed to  officiate in  the higher  post in  the present case, there is no order of the Central government appointing the appellant in an officiating capacity in the higher post. Therefore, in terms. Rule 49 of the F.R. is not satisfied.      It is  however argued  for the appellant that the order of the  Vice-Chairman of  the Jodhpur  Bench of the Tribunal permitting the  appellant under  Rule 28(3)  of the  Central Administrative Tribunal  (Procedure) Rule **** is sufficient for the purposes of Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules.      In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to find  out whether  the Vice-Chairman  could  without  the sanction of  the Central  Government, have  passed an  order conferring the  powers and  functions of the Registrar so as to enable  the Deputy  Registrar to claim the pay admissible to the post of Registrar, Now Rule 28(3) reads as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    "Rule 28(3) : In the absence of the      Registrar, the  Deputy Registrar or      any  other   officer  to  whom  the      powers   and   functions   of   the      registrar  are   delegated  by  the      Chairman or  Vice-Chairman, as  the      case  may   be,  may  exercise  the      powers   and   functions   of   the      Registrar."      Under Rule  28(3), for  the purposes of discharging the power and  functions of  the  Registrar,  an  order  of  the Chairman of Vice-Chairman, would no doubt be sufficient.      But, in  order to  claim the  pay of  the post  of  the Registrar an  order under  rule 28(3)  of the aforesaid rule alone is  not in  our opinion sufficient. The right to claim the pay  is squarely  governed by Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules.      We have  stated that  there is  no order of the Central Government passed  under Rule 49 in favour of the appellant. The next  question is  whether the  Central  Government  has delegated the  power under  Rule 49  to  the  Chairman/Vice- Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. If, however it is  established that the powers of the Central Government under Rule  49  are  delegated  to  the  Chairman  or  Vice- Chairman, the  of course, the Deputy Registrar upon whom the powers and  functions of  the Registrar  are  conferred  can certainly claim the pay of the Registrar.      We shall,  therefore, examine  whether the power of the Central Government  under F.R. 49 have been delegated to the Chairman/Vice-chairman   of   the   Central   Administrative Tribunal. Under  F.R. 9. the Central Government can delegate to any  of its  officers, subject to any conditions which it may think  fit to impose, any power conferred upon it by the Fundamental Rules  except the  powers relating to (a) making rules (b)  powers conferred  by Rule  8 9(a) (b), 44, 45A to 45C, 83, 108A, 119, 121 and 127 (c) and by the first proviso to clause  (1) of Rule 30. It is clear that Rule 49 power of the  Central  Government  can  be  delegated,  if  need  be, Appendix 3  to the  Fundamental Rules  contains a  table  of various delegations  made under F.R.6. item 20 of this Table does show  that the  power of  the Central  Government under Rule 49  has been delegated to "All Head of Departments" but column (5) of the Table which deals with the extent of power delegated imposes certain conditions, it says:      "Full  power,  provided  that  they      have power  to  appoint  Government      servant permanently  to each of the      post concerned."      In other  words, assuming  that  the  Chairman  of  the Principal Bench  of the  Central Administrative  Tribunal of the Vice-Chairman  of the Benches are "Heads of Department", the power  of the  Central  Government  under  Rule  49  are exercisable by  them as per the above delegation in Appendix 3 to  the F.R.  provided that  such Head of Departments have the power to appoint the concerned government servant to the higher post  in the  facts of this case, therefore, if it is established that  the Chairman/Vice-Chairman can appoint the Registrar of  the Bench  at  Jodhpur,  then  when  the  said Chairman/Vice-Chairman orders that the Deputy Registrar will exercise the  power and  functions of  the Registrar the pay attributable to  the post of Registrar can be claimed by the Deputy Registrar.      The   next    question   therefore   is   whether   the Chairman/Vice-Chairman are  the appointing  authorities  for the post  of Registrar  of the  Bench of  the  Tribunal.  We

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

shall, therefore refer to the relevant rules in this behalf.      Now, under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group A posts) Recruitment  Rules, ****,  the posts of the Registrar (Principal Bench)  in the scale of Rs.6000 - 6700. Registrar (other Benches)  in the  scale of  Rs. 4000  -  4700,  Joint Registrar n  the  scale  of  Rs.  4700  -  5000  and  Deputy Registrar in the scale of Rs. **** - **** are Group A posts.      Under  the   Central  Civil   Service  (Classification, Control and  Appeal Rules),  1965, Rule  * states  that  the Civil Service under Union shall be classified as Class A, B, C, and  D post.  Under Rule  6a the  word (group)  has to be substituted for  the word  ‘class’ wherever the word ‘class’ occurs. The  appointments to  Class I (i.e. group A) service and posts  are to  be made  by the President of India as per Rule 8  of the ******* Rules. The proviso to Rule 8, however says that  the President may be a general or special in such order delegate to any other authority the power to make such appointment so  far class  II, III,  IV (i.e. group B, C, D) are concerned. Rule 9 states that the appointing authorities are specified  in the  schedule to  CCA Rule, 1985. In other words, the  power of  the President  to appoint  persons  to Group B,  C, D posts has been delegated but not the power to appoint to  Group A  posts. We  have stated that the post of Registrar, Joint  Registrar and Deputy Registrar are group A posts.      No order  of the  President  of  India  delegating  his authority to  the Chairman  of Vice-Chairman  of the Central Administrative Tribunal,  in respect  of appointment  to the post of  Registrar has been brought to our notice. (As shown below, there  is now  an order  of delegation  so far as the post of Deputy Registrar is concerned).      Once it  is held that the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Central  Administrative Tribunal  are not the appointing authorities for  the post  of Registrar  of a  Bench of  the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of any delegation, it must  follow that  the condition laid down by the Central Government while  delegating powers  under Rule  49  of  the Fundamental Rules to the Head of the Department (vide column 9 of  Appendix *,  it **)  has not  been satisfied. The said condition would  have been  satisfied if the Chairman of the Vice-chairman of  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal  has been delegated the power to make appointments to the post of Registrar of a Bench of the Tribunal. If there had been such a delegation  of power to the Chairman of Vice-Chairman then the  latter   could  confer   additional  duties  and  power attributable  to  the  post  of  Registrar,  to  the  Deputy Registrar for purposes of Rule 49 of the F.R. as well and in that event,  the pay  of the post of Registrar could be paid to the  Deputy Registrars  entrusted with  higher powers and duties of  a Registrar.  We are  therefore, of the view that though  under   Rule  ***  of  the  Administrative  Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 the Chairman or the Vice-chairman are authorised to  delegate the  powers  and  functions  of  the Registrar to  the Deputy  Registrar still  in the absence of the power  of delegation  by the  Central Government for the purpose of  Rule 49  of the Fundamental Rules, the appellant who as  Deputy Registrar  exercised the powers and functions of the  Registrar, could not be granted the per attributable to the post of the Registrar.      In fact, this position has been clarified by latters of the Central  Government. The letter dated 5th December, 1985 addressed by  the  Department  of  Personnel  Administrative Reform,  Government   of  India  to  this  Chairman  Central Administrative Tribunal  would clearly  show that  the Group ‘A’ post  in the Tribunal shall be filled by the Chairman of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the Central  Administrative Tribunal  only after a reference to  the   department  i.e.   Department  of   Personnel  and Administrative Reforms  for obtaining appropriate orders. By the letter  dated 21st  May, 1997 of the Government of India in No.A-12018/5/85-CAT, the Central Government has delegated to the  Chairman of  the Central Administrative Tribunal the power to make appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar in the Central  Administrative  Tribunal  on  deputation  basis subject to  the Government’s  Rules and  instructions on the subject. The  above two letter therefore, would make in very clear that  the appointments  to group ‘A’ posts (other than Deputy Registrar)  could be  made by  the  Chairman  Central Administrative Tribunal  only after  a reference  thereof to the Central  Government.  So  far  as  the  post  of  Deputy Registrar among group ‘A’ posts are concerned, that power of appointment  to  the  post  of  Deputy  Registrar  has  been delegated to  the Chairman  of  the  Central  Administrative Tribunal.      For the  aforesaid  reasons we are of the view that the condition mentioned  in Appendix  3 to  the F.R. wherein the Central government has delegated powers under Rule 49 to the Head  of   the  Department  namely  that  the  Head  of  the Department must  have been authorised to make appointment to the higher  post, is not satisfied in the facts of this case inasmuch as  the  power  to  appoint  a  Registrar  has  not separately been  delegated to  the Chairman or Vice-chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence the Additional remuneration cannot be granted as claimed.      Learned counsel  for the  appellant made  a  submission that the principle of quantum ***** would apply to the facts of the  case and  relied upon  the decision  of the  Supreme Court in  State of  West Bengal  Vs. B.K. Mondal & Sons [AIR 1962 SC  779]. in  that case  it was  held that  though  the contract for  certain work  was  not  executed  as  per  the provision of  Section 175(3)  or the Government of India Act still compensation  could be  paid under  Section 70  of the Contract Act.  In our  view the said decision which is based on Section  70 of  the Contract Act is not applicable to the present situation  where the  field is  governed by specific statutory rules namely Rule 40 of the Fundamental Rules.      We  are,  therefore  in  agreement  with  the  judgment rendered by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  on  the judicial side  on 4.5.1995  which has  affirmed the order of the Chairman, Principal Bench, of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20.3.1991 passed on the administrative side.      The result  is rather  unfortunate but  in view  of the rule position  set out  above, we  have  no  choice  but  to dismiss this  appeal. The  appeal is  dismissed but  in  the circumstance there will be no order as to costs.