[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1027
UNION OF INDIA
A
V.
C.N. VASUDEVAN
(Civil Appeal No. 7260 of 2002)
MAY 7, 2008
B
" ~
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)
Service Law:
Honorarium/extra remuneration - Regional Passport c
Officer - Also assigned duties of Protector of Emigrants -
Duties performed during normal office hours on working days
-
Claim by Regional Passport Officer for honorarium!
remuneration over and above the salary for the period he also
worked as Protector of Emigrants - HELD: Not admissible -
•. -t
Both the High Court and the Tribunal erred in law as well as in D
facts in granting hororarium to the incumbent - Duties of
Protector of Emigrants under the Emigration Act are part of
the normal duties of the Regional Passport Officer - No extra
remuneration as claimed has to be paid.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No. E
7260 of 2002.
From the Judgment dated 18. 7.2001 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 1962/2001.
..
Rekha Pandey, Sushma Suri and B.V. Balaram Das for F
>.
the Appellants.
Debasis Misra for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears
,1,
for the respondent.
The question involved in this appeal is as to whether the
respondent is entitled to grant of honorarium/remuneration for
1027
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 7 S.C.R.
A
the period he worked as Protector of Emigrants over and above
his salary as Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad.
The respondent was working as a Regional Passport
Officer. He was also assigned the duties and responsibilities of
Protector of Emigrants. He filed an O.A. before the Central
8
Administrative Tribunal praying that since the responsibilities
of the Regional Passport Officer and Protector of Emigrants
are quite different, he may be paid an honorarium for working in
the latter capacity. His prayer was allowed by the Tribunal. The
High Court, by its impugned order, affirmed the order of the
C tribunal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
We have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad before the
Tribunal. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that
0
in all 14 Passport Officers were authorised to perform the
functions of Protector of Emigrants so as to decide whether a ·
person intending to depa;t from India is an emigrant or not for
the purpose of Emigration Act, 1983. It is also stated that the
duties of Protector of Emigrant were part of the normal duty of
E the Regional Passport Officer. It is also stated that the duty of
Protector of Emigrant was to be performed by the Regional
Passport Officer during the normal office hours on working days
only. It is further contended that the duties of Protector of
Emigrants are being performed by the Passport Officers and
that no additional duty or responsibility has been assigned to
F
them. According to the said counter affidavit, therefore, there
was no question of payment of honorarium to the Regional
Passport Officer who was assigned the duties of Protector of
Emigrants.
G
We agree with the aforesaid contention. Both the High
Court and the Tribunal erred in law as well as in facts in granting
honorarium to the respondent. The duties of Protector of
Emigrants under the Emigration Act is part of the normal duties
of the Regional Passport Officer. Hence no extra remuneration
H has to be paid for the work over and above the salary as
•
+
'
y
i
•
UNION OF INDIA v. C.N. VASUDEVAN
1029
Regional Passport Officer. To give an analogous example, the
A
District Magistrate/Collector of a district is often also the
prescribed authority under various State and Central Acts for
discharging functions under the said Acts. This does not entitle
the District Magistrate/Collector to any extra remuneration over
and abo 1e his normal salary.
B
~
In the premises aforestated, the orders of the tribunal ahd
• +
of the High Court are set aside. This appeal is allowed. No
costs.
R.P.
Appeal allowed. c
Lex