https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343242 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. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 May 2017 08:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343242 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343242