1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(i) 5-8-1971 to 28-9-1973. (ii) 7-2-1974 to 8-3-1974. (iii) 1-8-11974 to 4-10-1974. (iv) 22-1-1975 to 8-3-1975. (v) 19-5-1975 to 20-9-1975. (vi) 11-12-1975 to 21-4-1976. From, 22-4-1976, onwards, he was promoted on a regular basis. We have heard detailed arguments and perused the relevant departmental record. We consider that the decision in the context of the present appeal would depend upon the interpretation and application of the policy decision of. the President and C. M. L. A. contained in paragraph 2 of the Ministry of Finance Letter No. F. 4 (i)/70-Exp. IV/11th dated 17-2-1972. It is evident that treatment similar to the Officer mentioned in the "subject of the aforesaid letter was to be accorded to other officers appointed to higher posts without A their formal promotion to these posts. The decision, admittedly, has not been modified or revised. The letter however contains an advice to the Auditor-General not to appoint to a higher post in future, any officer, without formal promotion to that post, in accordance with the formal rules and orders. This advice of the Ministry not having been found to be conducive to efficiency and smooth administration, became the subject-matter of correspondence with the Ministry and the circumstances under which the appellant continued beyond 17-2-1972, the date of issue of the Ministry's letter were explained to the Ministry. (Auditor-General's letter d.o. letter dated 1-1-1973 and Letter No. GB-11/27-72 dated 23-10-1973 refer). Our attention was also invited to Finance Division's Letter No. F. 2(6)/73. Exp. IV/2044 dated 18-7-1977. Under this letter, the Auditor-General was informed that `it has been held that appointments made without the approval of the Appointing Authority are invalid appointments and do not carry any title to pay. Although, this may generally be correct, the policy decision taken to the letter dated 17-2-1972 remains unaffected and the case of the appellant is fully covered by the decision. It was presumably, precisely for this reason, that the petitioner was allowed pay of the post held, up to 17-2-1971 the date of issue of the Ministry's aforesaid letter. This letter can by no means be interpreted to mean that future payments due on the same basis should be disallowed. Since the officer performed similar plenary duties with full responsibility pay of the post held for other periods cannot be disallowed. It was open to tire respondents to terminate or discontinue the arrangements. Once the arrangements were made and the officer appointed tax the post, the pay of the post authorized by the Ministry itself under their letter dated 8-5-1973, when the arrangements still subsisted could not be limited to a period upto 17-2-1972 arid not thereafter. No justification exists for disallowing pay of the post held, particularly when President's decision continues to be applicable in the instant case. WA therefore held that the appellant is entitled to pay of the post held for various periods and direct that he be paid accordingly. Appeal dismissed.