Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTDisbursement of the additional remuneration as per Fundamental Rules 49, within the prescribed period - need for sanction of the higher authority for giving additional charge to a particular officer - Held that:- For the purpose of payment of additional pay beyond the period of three months, sanction is required. It does not speak for non-entitlement, on account of the holding charge exceeding a period of three months. In our view, the entitlement for the additional charge allowance/remuneration is one thing and the disbursement aspect is another thing. FR 49(iii) expressly provides for the charge allowance for holding the charge of another post. Once the entitlement is proved, merely because for disbursement, the sanction is required of the higher authority is no ground to deny the benefit for the additional charge allowance. The interpretation as canvassed by the learned counsel that in the absence of any sanction granted by the higher authority, one is not entitle d for the charge allowance for the period exceeding three months is not correct and the same cannot be accepted. When proviso to FR 4 9(iii) expressly provides for sanction of the competent authority for payment, it cannot be mixed with the sanction to be granted at the time when charge is to be handed over. In any case, it was not contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal nor any material is shown to this Court that the respondent held charge of the additional post unauthorisedly. Under these circumstances, once the charge of additional post is held in lawful manner, the employee concerned would be entitled for additional charge allowance. The disbursement thereof is a procedural aspect which cannot nullify the entitlement of the employee concerned.
|