1. Clarification sought regarding grade pay entitlement for current duty charge of a higher post. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Commissioner MCD – Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Parshad Sharma – Respondent
W.P.(C) 4178/2011 | CM APPL. 49150/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Sannu, Vaibhav Tripathi
For the Respondents: Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Himanshu Bhardwaj, Sudhanshu Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Sannu, Vaibhav Tripathi
For the Respondents: Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Himanshu Bhardwaj, Sudhanshu Singh
An employee assigned the current duty charge of a higher post is entitled to the pay and grade pay attached to that higher post.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Current Duty Charge - An employee assigned the current duty charge of a higher post is entitled to the pay and grade pay attached to that higher post, regardless of whether the promotion was regular or ad hoc. (Para 9, 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the respondent is entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- attached to the post of Administrative Officer while holding current duty charge.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for higher grade pay of Rs.5400 attached to AO post vs stand that current duty charge does not entitle grade pay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court found that current duty charge holder is entitled to pay attached to the higher post. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. An officer given current duty charge of a higher post is entitled to the pay and grade pay of that higher post. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Application allowed; respondent entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400 from grant of current duty charge with 6% interest. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Is an employee given current duty charge of a higher post entitled to the pay of that higher post?
Yes. The court held that even when current duty charge is given without regular promotion, the employee is entitled to the pay and grade pay of the higher post. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM APPL. 49150/2026 (clarification)
1. By this order, we shall decide CM Application No.49150/2026, which has been filed by the respondent herein with the following prayers:-
“a. Clarify the order dated 13.05.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4178/2011 to the extent that the grade pay applicable to the post of Administrative Officer at the relevant point of time was different and higher from that of Superintendent, and also to the extent that the fixation in favour of the Respondent should be carried out by the Petitioners keeping in mind the subsequent revisions to the pay structure that has been carried out for the post of Administrative Officer; and/ or
b. To pass such other and further order, which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Suffice to state that initially the captioned writ petition was decided vide order dated 07.05.2013.
3. Thereafter, the Supreme Court passed the order dated 10.01.2014 to the following effect:-
“After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition to enable the petitioner to file a Review Application. Liberty is granted without any liberty to challenge the same very impugned order before this Court . The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. The petitioner filed the Review Petition No.473/2018, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 by stating in paragraphs 14-15 as under:-
“14. Suffice it to state, this Court had not taken into consideration the Office order dated 31.08.2005, whereby the respondent was granted promotion to the post of Superintendent on ad hoc basis in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 which is a higher scale and also the fact that, while working as Superintendent on ad hoc basis, he was given current duty charge of the post of AO/AAC vide officer order dated 31.08.2007. Though current duty charge does not involve grant of the pay of the post, but in this case, the scale of pay of AO/AAC was also Rs.6,500-10,500 equivalent to the scale of Superintendent, which was given to the respondent with effect from 31.08.2005. The respondent, who was promoted in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 as Superintendent shall continue to draw the scale even if he was given current duty charge as AO/AAC because he shall be entitled to the scale as Superintendent from which he was given current duty charge, of the post of AAO/AAC.
15. So, it follows the respondent shall not be entitled to the pay of Superintendent w.e.f. 18.05.2005 but surely w.e.f. 31.08.2005 and he shall continue to draw the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 even if he was given current duty charge of the post of AO/AAC. This we say in view of the judgment referred to by the Tribunal in the case of Selveraj (supra) and also in the case of S. N. Paracer (supra).”
5. The submission of Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant is primarily that though this Court had granted the pay of the Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.6500 – 10500 including the revised pay under pay band-II in grade pay of Rs.4800/-, but the conclusion drawn by this Court in paragraph no.14 that the pay of the Superintendent/AO/AAC being Rs.6500 – 10500 (pre-revised) equivalent/identical is erroneous. According to him, the respondent shall be entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- with effect from the date when he was given current duty charge of AO/AAC.
6. The submission of Mr.Bhardwaj is drawing our attention to the application to contend that the pay of AO/AAC has undergone revision in pay band-II with grade pay of Rs. 5400/- and as such the respondent would be entitled to the pay in the grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 31.08.2007 when the petitioner, who while working as Superintendent on ad hoc basis was given current duty charge on the post of AO/AAC.
7. The petitioners herein have filed a reply to this application wherei
