Additional charge allowance under Fundamental Rules survives where the post was lawfully held and later office instructions cannot override the entitlement.

Fundamental Rules 49(iii) were interpreted as creating a right to additional remuneration when an employee lawfully holds additional charge of another post, while the requirement of prior sanction beyond three months was treated as relevant only to disbursement. A later office memorandum could not operate retrospectively or dilute the statutory force of the Fundamental Rules. Where the additional charge was not shown to be unauthorised, denial of allowance solely for want of sanction for payment was impermissible, and the entitlement to additional charge allowance was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employee who lawfully holds additional charge of another post is entitled to additional remuneration under Fundamental Rules 49(iii) despite absence of prior sanction for payment beyond three months, and whether a later office memorandum can negate that entitlement.

Analysis: Fundamental Rules 49(iii) were construed as creating the entitlement to additional pay for holding another post, while the requirement of sanction beyond three months was treated as relating to disbursement and not to the existence of the right itself. The holding of additional charge was not shown to be unauthorised. The office memorandum issued in 2015 could not be applied retrospectively and could not override or dilute the statutory force of the Fundamental Rules. Once additional charge was held lawfully, denial of allowance merely for want of sanction for payment was impermissible.

Conclusion: The employee remained entitled to the additional charge allowance, and the direction for disbursement of remuneration under Fundamental Rules 49 was upheld.

---