AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All that survives in this appeal is a claim made by the appellant for additional payment for work rendered by the appellant in the post of
Messenger in addition to her normal work. In the impugned Judgment, at paragraph 4, the High Court has entered a finding to the effect that the
appellant has, in fact, worked in the post of Messenger for two and a half years.
Paragraph 4 of the impugned Judgment reads as under :-
But the appellant is justified in contending that she is entitled to additional payment on the strength of Exhibit P2 order whereby she had been
allotted additional duty in an office as a messenger in addition to her normal work. Therefore, the respondents shall consider payment of additional
remuneration to the appellant for the days she had worked as messenger in addition to her normal work. It is also made clear that as the entire
case of the petitioner had been reconsidered and a fresh order was passed as per Exhibit R3(A), the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to seek
her remedy against it as per law
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, has invited our attention to order dated 12.12.2005 whereby the case of the
appellant has been considered and by way of a speaking order, the same has been rejected. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission.
The finding of the High Court as against the respondents has become final. In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to disburse the difference in wages for the period of two and a half years in the post of Messenger after adjusting the
emoluments already granted to her while working as a casual worker. The needful will be done within two months from today.
No costs.