Tarsem Lal Vs Union of India and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that claim of petitioner to be treated as Additional Commissioner while being posted at ITAT so as to grant the higher salary cannot be accepted since nothing brought on record stating that duties of higher nature were performed.
Facts- In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, by which the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the higher pay of the post of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Sr.DR) for the period i.e. starting from 03.06.2006 as he was working with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench as a departmental representative (DR), has been rejected, which is causing him prejudice.
Conclusion- Held that it is noticed that even for the grant of allowances, all the different rank officers were getting the same allowance, the claim of the petitioner that he has to be treated as Additional Commissioner while being posted at ITAT so as to grant the higher salary cannot be accepted. It is only in case the duties of a higher nature are being performed as compared to the duties to be performed in the substantive rank, the employee become entitled for a higher salary of the post he is discharging the duties, whereas in the present case, nothing has come on record to show that while performing the duties of the post of departmental representative before the ITAT, the petitioner was discharging the duties of a higher nature than the one to be performed by the Assistant Commissioner so as to claim the salary of the post of Additional Commissioner.
