Important Point
In the absence of the power of delegation by the Central Government for the purposes of Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules, the Deputy Registrar discharging the powers and functions of the Registrar of the Administrative Tribunal, could not be granted the pay attributable to the post of the Registrar.

Headnote:Service Law-F.R. 49-Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules- 28(3)-Claim for additional remuneration for holding current/additional of a higher post-Powers of Central Government can be delegated-Whether Chairman/Vice-Chairman are appointing authorities for post of Registrar of Bench of Administrative Tribunal ?-(No)-Posts of Registrar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Registrar are group A posts-Whether Vice Chairman could without sanction of Central Government, have passed an order conferring powers and functions of Registrar to enable Deputy Registrar to claim pay admissible to post of Registrar?-(No)-Right to claim pay is governed by Rule 49 of Fundamental Rules-However, for discharging powers and functions, order would be sufficient. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 18, 20)
       (ii) Service Law-F.R. 49-Claim for additional remuneration for holding current/additional of a higher post-Appellant working as Deputy Registrar in High Court-Appointment as Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, on deputation-He was conferred certain additional powers and functions under orders passed by Vice-Chairman of Tribunal-Appellant s request for additional remuneration for discharging duties of Registrar-Whether can be allowed?-(No)-Power to appoint a Registrar has not separately been delegated to Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal-Condition mentioned in Appendix 3 to F.R. not satisfied-Additional remuneration cannot be granted as claimed.
       Held : A reading of Fundamental Rule 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 his ordinary duties-he shall be allowed pay admissible to him, as if he is appointed to officiate in the higher post. Under sub-clause (i) 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. (Para 11)
       Further 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 5 of Appendix 3, Item 20) has not been satisfied. The said condition would have been satisfied if the Chairman or the Vice-chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal had 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 or Vice-chairman then the latter could confer additional duties and powers 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 28(3) 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 purposes 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 pay attributable to the post of the Registrar. (Para 22)

Judgment

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.

2. 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.

3. 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 powers to incur recurring and non-recurring contingent expenditure to the extent of Rs. 500/- for maintenance, upkeeping, repairs of staff cars and miscellaneous expenditure. It was also stated in that order that the above delegation of powers would be subject to the observance of usual economy instructions, provisions of rules and regulations and availability of funds.

4. 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.

5. 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 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 or 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 had 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.

6. 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 orders of the Vice-Chairman dated 4.4.1988 to exercise all powers 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.

7. When the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. Jodhpur on the Judicial Side by filling 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.

8. 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.

9. In this appeal, we have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document