CH RAMA RAO vs Dept of Posts on 8 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“…to call for the records pertaining to the Order No. OA No.020/310/2020 dated 25.9.2020 (Annexure- XII) rejecting the request of the applicant for pay fixation, Pension and other pensionary benefits based on the pay and allowances of the Post, HSG-I, from which he retired, And declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and against rules against the rules and in violation of the Article - 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the pay fixation benefits from 07-09- 20002 to 31-05-2005 as per FR 22 (1)(a)(1) and revise and refix the Pension and other Pensionary benefits taking into account the pay and allowances attached to the post of Postmaster Amudalavalasa HO in HSG-I Cadre from which he retired on 31.5.2005. And pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the case of the applicant that, with effect from 08.09.2003, he was accorded ad hoc promotion and was working as Postmaster till his retirement. It is the contention of the applicant that, despite having worked in the said post for several years, his ad hoc promotion was never regularized and, therefore, the pay attached to the post of Postmaster in HSG-I cadre was not taken into account for fixation of his pensionary benefits.

3. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that, in an identical matter, similar circumstances were considered by this Tribunal in OA/717/2013, YSSV Prasad v. Department of Posts, decided on 21.10.2019. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder: “The important aspect in this dispute is as to whether applicant has to be paid higher pay for the higher responsibilities shouldered by him in the higher post of HSG I. The Tribunal is of the view that the pay that has been prescribed to HSG I

PRACHI BHASKAR

post has to be necessarily paid to the applicant.

This Tribunal granted similar relief in OA Nos. 1243 and 1282 of 2012, vide order dt. 09.07.2013 following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. Further, this Tribunal has also dealt with similar case in OA 548 of 2015, vide order dt. 16.07.2015, wherein it was observed as under:

"......This stand of the respondents is untenable as the respondents, based on the various orders of this Tribunal as well as the orders of the Hon ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 38974/2012, have issued modified instructions vide Serial Circular No. 80/2011, conveying the Railway Boards decision that the basic pay drawn by an employee on ad hoc promotion in the Construction Organization should be reckoned as pay for the purpose of reckoning emoluments in terms of Rule 49 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules."

17 OA 20/717/2013 Hence, the principle of fixing pension based on the last pay drawn even on officiating basis is well settled. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the OA succeeds. Consequently, the respondents are directed as under:

i) to fix the pay of the applicant in HSG Grade-I w.e.f.

24.08.2005 in the applicable pay scales, keeping in view Rule 9 of Fundamental Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cited supra, and consequently revise the pension and pensionary benefits of the applicant;

ii) Time granted to implement this order is three months from the date of receipt of the order.

iii) The OA is thus allowed with the above directions, with no order as to costs.”

4. Based on the above submission, he says that the applicant is also entitled.

5. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. He would submit and draw reference to the tabular chart contained therein, which reads as under: Sl. No. Place of working Period of working Remarks

Srikakulam Head Post Office 07.09.2002 to Worked as officiating HSG–I Postmaster, Srikakulam HO, in the leave vacancy of regular HSG–I Postmaster.

PRACHI BHASKAR

31.12.2002

Srikakulam Head Post Office 01.01.2003 to 28.05.2003 Worked as officiating HSG–I Postmaster, Srikakulam HO, in the regular vacancy arising due to retirement of Shri N. Srinivasulu, HSG–I Postmaster, Srikakulam HO, on 31.12.2002 and due to non-posting of HSG–I official on regular basis by the Circle Office/Regional Office.

Srikakulam Head Post Office 30.05.2003 to 28.06.2003 Worked as officiating HSG–I Postmaster, Srikakulam HO, in the regular vacancy arising due to retirement of Shri N. Srinivasulu, HSG–I Postmaster, Srikakulam HO, on 31.12.2002 and due to non-posting of HSG–I official on regular basis by the Circle Office/Regional Office.

Amadalavalasa Head Post Office 01.07.2003 to 12.03.2004 Worked as officiating HSG–I Postmaster, Amadalavalasa HO, in the regular vacancy arising due to retirement of Shri K. Rajeswara Rao, HSG–I Postmaster, Amadalavalasa HO, on 31.03.2003 and due to non- posting of HSG–I official on regular basis by the Circle Office/Regional Office.

Amadalavalasa Head Post Office 15.03.2004 to 31.05.2005 Worked as officiating HSG–I Postmaster, Amadalavalasa HO, in the regular vacancy arising due to retirement of Shri K. Rajeswara Rao, HSG–I Postmaster, Amadalavalasa HO, on 31.03.2003 and due to non- posting of HSG–I official on regular basis by the Circle Office/Regional Office.

6. The applicant retired on superannuation on 31.05.2005 while working on an ad hoc basis as an officiating HSG-I Postmaster.

7. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, as per the applicable Rules and the relevant Recruitment Rules, unless and until an ad hoc promotion is regularized by a specific office order, mere officiating/working in the said post cannot, ipso facto, be construed as a regular appointment to the post. Therefore, the benefits attached to the regular post cannot be extended to the applicant merely on the ground that he had worked in the said post for a considerable period.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents refers to

PRACHI BHASKAR

and relies upon the terminology contained in R.B. Shetty’s Supreme Court on Words & Phrases, which reads as under: “Officiating/ temporary: According to its ordinary connotation the word 'officiating' is generally used when a servant having held one post perman-ently or substantively, is appointed to a post in a higher rank, but not permanently or substantively, while still retaining his lien on his substantive post i.e., officiating in that post till his confirmation. Such officiating appointment may be madewhen there is a temporary vacancy in a higher post due to the death or retirement of the incumbent or other-wise. In contrast, the word 'temporary' usually denotes a person appointed in the civil service for the first time and the appointment is not permanent but temporary i.e., for the time being, with no right to the post. Arun Kumar Chatterjee v. South Eastern Rly. (1985) 2 SCC 451: AIR 1985 SC 482.”

9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, we proceed to consider the matter.

10. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case law relating to officiating service, as well as the relevant Rules applicable to the case.

11. It is not in dispute that the applicant had been working in an officiating capacity since 2003 till the date of his superannuation. In such circumstances, fixation of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by the applicant, even while working in an officiating capacity, is supported by the settled position of law. You can frame this as the Tribunal's reasoning:

12. The question of granting regular appointment to the applicant against the promotional post does not arise for consideration. The issue before us is confined to the treatment to be accorded to the applicant at the time of his retirement and, consequently, the pay scale on the basis of which his pensionary benefits are required to be determined. The said issue is no longer res integra in view of the observations made by this Tribunal in OA/717/2013, YSSV Prasad v. Department of Posts, supra.

PRACHI BHASKAR

13. It is also noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment rendered in Selva Raj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, dated 16.03.1998, reported in AIR 1999 SC 838 : JT 1998 (4) SC 500 : (1998) 4 SCC 291, held as under:

"4. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the applicant to the aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents will be called upon to make available to the applicant the difference of salary in the time scale of Rs. 1640-2900 during the period from 29.01.1992 to 19.09.1995, during which time the appellant actually worked. It is made clear that the payment of aforesaid difference amount of salary shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief is being given to him. The difference of salary as aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within 8 weeks from today. No costs."

14. It is further noticed in the following judgment as under:

“1. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL Vs. Sri SN Paracer and others. (2013) held that, the respondents and other s were in fact appointed on look after arrangements. He would be entitled to the pay prescribed to the post in which he officiated and eventually superannuated while so officiating. In the light of the above discussion the court finds no infirmity with the reasoning or finding of the CAT, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

2. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the case of Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi and others Vs. Gopu Lalu Lamani (2014) held that, since no extra payment is made to the respondent even though he has discharged the duties as junior Hindi translator, he is entitled for the equal pay to the post attached to the junior Hindi translator.”

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate pension order by taking into account the last pay drawn by the applicant, with arrears thereto, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to mention, in the event that the respondents fail to make the payment within the aforesaid period, the applicant

PRACHI BHASKAR

shall be entitled to interest at the GPF rate.

16. The O.A. is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pb/

O.A. is disposed of on

: 08.10.2026 Order dictated on

: 08.10.2026

PRACHI BHASKAR