Smti. Geeta Lall v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAJIT BASU HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH WP.CT/16/2025 Smt. Geeta Lall ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : 28.08.2025 Judgment on : 28.08.2025 GAURANG KANTH, J.
1.
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in O.A. No. 351/00158/2015/AN and M.A. No. 351/00149/2024/AN. 2.
The case of the petitioner is that while she was substantively appointed as Librarian Grade-III on 04.10.2002, she was also directed to discharge the duties of Public Relation Officer (PRO) and has been continuously performing the functions attached to that post. However, despite having
discharged the duties of the PRO, she has not been granted the pay scale admissible to that post.
3.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, in addition to her regular duties as Librarian, she was entrusted with the responsibilities of the Public Relation Officer, and therefore, she is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, in place of the lower scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 applicable to the post of Librarian Grade-III. 4.
Learned counsel further points out that the petitioner had earlier submitted a representation dated 21.01.2014 before the competent authority, which was not considered, thereby compelling her to file O.A. No. 351/17/2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of on 21.03.2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed an order dated 17.03.2015, rejecting her claim. It is this order which was challenged in the subsequent O.A., culminating in the impugned order dated 21.02.2025.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind, inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Public Relation
Officer and was, therefore, entitled to the pay scale attached to that post, rather than the scale applicable to Librarian Grade-III. 6.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was never substantively appointed or formally promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer. It is urged that her substantive appointment has always remained that of Librarian Grade-III, and at best, she was only entrusted with certain additional duties as per administrative exigencies. 7.
It is further submitted that mere assignment of some overlapping functions of a higher post does not confer any right upon an employee to claim the pay scale or benefits attached to that post, particularly when no order of officiation or promotion was ever issued in her favour.
8.
This Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and examined the documents. 9.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner's substantive post is that of Librarian Grade-III. However, her grievance is that while she has continuously discharged the duties of Public Relation Officer, she has been denied the corresponding pay scale. 10.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has not been able to produce any specific order conferring upon her
the charge of Public Relation Officer in terms of her prayer. The orders dated 30.07.2004, 05.11.2007, and 07.11.2007, issued by the respondents, indicate that the petitioner was assigned certain duties, some of which overlapped with the functions of the Public Relation Officer. The said orders are reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"Following table indicates the duties assigned to the applicant vide order dated 30.07.2004, 05.11.2007 and 07.11.2007 vis-à-vis the duties of the Public Relation Officer as reproduced above:- Duties of PRO as per Office Order dated 01.05.2014 Whether assigned to the applicant As per Office Order dated 30.07.2004 As Per Office Orders dated 05.11.
2007 and 07.11.2007 1.
Coordination with local journalist and print media Yes No 2.
Conducting mainland tour of journalist and local media persons No No 3.
Organizing of National Press Day No No 4.
Conduct of training/ workshop/ seminar for media persons No No 5.
Distribution of newspapers No Yes 6.
Rostering of new local papers in the media list for release of advertisement and amendment in A&N Advertisement Rule and related matters Yes Yes 7.
Issue of press card Yes Yes 8.
Security clearance of press/media persons during VIP visits No No 9.
Matters related with Press Council of India Yes No 10.
Legal matters relating to local media No No 11.
Release of Govt. Advertisement to private local newspapers Yes Yes 12.
Preparation of updating of media list No No 13.
Coordination with AIR, DDK for coverage of Republic Day and Independence Day Yes No 14.
Matters related with Press Room, Press Club Yes Yes (For Press Club only) 15.
Accreditation Yes No "
11.
Upon a perusal of the duty list of the applicant dated 30.07.2004, it is evident that she was not entrusted with several of the duties specifically assigned to the post of Public Relation Officer under the office order dated 01.05.2014, particularly those enumerated at serial numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12. Similarly, the duties assigned to her under the office orders dated 05.11.2007 and 07.11.2007 did not include the functions of the Public Relation Officer reflected at serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 therein. This clearly demonstrates that the applicant was never entrusted with the substantive functions of the Public Relation Officer, but only with limited tasks which incidentally overlapped with that role. 12.
It is also noted that certain core responsibilities of the Public Relation Officer, such as conducting mainland tours of journalists and organizing Press Day, were specifically entrusted to the Publicity Assistant and not to the applicant, as is borne out from the office orders dated 30.07.2004 and 05.11.2007. 13.
Further, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the communication dated 08.01.2008 issued by the Administration does not advance the petitioner's case. A note recorded therein by the Secretary, Information & Publicity, clearly states that the petitioner was working as a Librarian.
Although the said note mentions that she had occasionally dealt with matters relating to media, press, advertisement rules and release of advertisements, it simultaneously affirms that she continued to discharge the duties of a Librarian. The note further records that while the petitioner may possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Public Relation Officer, she was never formally assigned, nor appointed to, that role. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner was ever required to, or in fact did, discharge the substantive functions of the Public Relation Officer so as to claim the pay scale attached to that post.
14.
This Court further notes that the petitioner has been unable to place on record any document to demonstrate that she was ever assigned the complete duties of the Public Relation Officer so as to entitle her to the grade pay attached to that post. 15.
It is well settled that, in the course of administrative functioning, certain additional duties may be entrusted to officers depending upon administrative exigencies.
Such arrangements are made purely in the interest of smooth and efficient functioning of the administration. However, the entrustment of additional duties for a limited period cannot, by itself, confer upon the concerned employee any enforceable right
to claim the salary, allowances, or other benefits attached to a higher post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has categorically held that mere discharge of some functions of a higher post, without formal promotion or substantive appointment, does not entitle an employee to the pay scale or benefits of that post. This principle has been consistently reiterated, affirming that additional charge or temporary arrangement cannot create a vested right to higher pay.
16.
In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any office order or authority assigning to the petitioner the full charge of the post of Public Relation Officer. On the contrary, the material placed on record clearly shows that the petitioner's substantive post remained that of Librarian Grade-III, and that she was only entrusted with limited duties which, at best, overlapped with some of the functions of the Public Relation Officer.
17.
In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal and does not find
any infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the order under challenge.
18.
In view thereof, the present writ petitioner is dismissed. I agree.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.) (BISWAJIT BASU, J.)