Special pay depends on actual discharge of designated duties, not cadre status or seniority.

Upper Division Clerks who were not performing the special and onerous duties attached to earmarked posts were not entitled to special pay merely by reason of cadre status or seniority. The special pay was treated as compensation for discharge of those designated duties, so the absence of actual performance meant the legal basis for payment was missing. The fact that junior employees in special posts were receiving the allowance did not create an automatic entitlement, and an unchallenged tribunal order in another matter did not control a question of general legal principle. The claim for special pay was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Upper Division Clerks who were not assigned special duties in the earmarked posts were entitled to special pay of Rs. 35 per month merely on the basis of their cadre status or seniority.

Analysis: The special pay was meant as compensation for discharge of special and onerous duties attached to the designated posts. It was not an automatic benefit available to all Upper Division Clerks, and it could not be claimed merely because some juniors in the special posts were receiving it. The absence of challenge to an earlier tribunal order in another matter did not compel the same result in all cases, since the question involved a legal principle of general application. As the respondents were not actually performing the special duties attached to the earmarked posts, the basis for grant of special pay was absent.

Conclusion: The claim for special pay was not sustainable and was rejected.

---