NEELMANI NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Smt. Neelmani Negi was appointed as a Mukhya Sevika in the year 1979. Vide order dated 11.6.1990 (Annexure P-1), she was directed to "hold additional charge of the post of Mukhya Sevika", which at the relevant time was lying vacant. Pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner assumed additional charge of Mukhya Sevika on 12.6.1990. It is not in dispute that the petitioner discharged duties of the aforesaid post in addition to her own post with effect from 12.6.1990 to 12.5.1999. Petitioner stood promoted on regular basis to the post of Mukhya Sevika in the pay scale of Rs.5000-180-5800-200-7800-220-8100 vide office order dated 10.3.1999 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner is that she in terms of annexure P-1, continued to discharge additional duties of the post of Mukhya Sevika but respondents denied her additional pay/officiating pay of the post of Mukhya Sevika. Petitioner made various representations to the respondent (Annexures P-2 to P-5) for grant of additional pay for holding additional charge of the post of Mukhya Sevika but, her representations came to be rejected vide order dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P-1) by Deputy Director, Rural Development Department, Himachal Pradesh. Against aforesaid order, petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 2726 of 2005, which is now before this Court, after having been transferred and re-registered as CWPOA No. 739 of 2019.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute that the petitioner discharged additional duties of the post of Mukhya Sevika for nine years, with effect from 12.6.1990 to 12.5.1999, for which the petitioner is seeking additional pay/officiating pay in terms of FR No. 49. Respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no additional pay is admissible to a Government servant appointed to hold current charge of the routine duties of another post irrespective of the duration of the additional charge. Respondents have stated in the reply that holding of additional charge of the post of Mukhya Sevika with effect from 12.6.1990 to 12.5.1999, does not entitle the petitioner for any additional pay with annual increments, as has been prayed.