The Gauhati High Court has held that a recommendation for promotion made after a person’s superannuation cannot be given effect so as to extend the individual’s period of service. The Court clarified that while a promotion recommendation may have been issued close to retirement, once the employee has retired, such recommendation cannot revive or prolong his service.
The matter arose when Dr. Satyajit Paul had been recommended for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), with retrospective effect from 2018. The Departmental Promotion Committee had approved his name a day before his retirement, but the formal notification of promotion was issued only in 2022 — after his superannuation. Subsequently, the State withdrew the Office Memorandum that had formed the basis of the promotion, contending that the promotion ceased to have effect on account of administrative delay.
A Division Bench of the High Court, headed by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, stated that “the recommendation for promotion cannot be actually effected after superannuation.” The Court emphasised that extension of service tenure — which would have been necessary for continuing in the higher post — would not be in accordance with law.
At the same time, the Court recognised that because the promotion was under CAS — which hinges on satisfaction of eligibility criteria rather than the availability of a vacant post — it may be made notionally effective. On that understanding, the Court held that Dr. Paul would be entitled to financial benefits associated with the higher post (Professor) only for the period from the retrospective date (17 May 2018) until the date of his retirement (31 March 2022).
However, the Court held that after retirement, Dr. Paul cannot assume the responsibilities of the higher post. Notwithstanding the notional effect during service, he must be regarded as having retired as Associate Professor, and his pension and other terminal benefits will be fixed accordingly — at the rate applicable to Associate Professor. The order granting promotion was declared to have lapsed upon the recall of the Office Memorandum in March 2022.
In its judgment, the High Court modified the earlier decision of the single Judge, limiting the relief to monetary benefits during the period when the promotion could notionally apply. No extension of tenure, reinstatement, or post-retirement benefits tied to the higher post have been permitted.
Thus the Court reaffirmed the principle that a promotion — even when recommended before retirement — can only be given legal effect if the employee assumes charge of the promoted post while still in service. Retrospective promotions notified after retirement cannot revive service or confer higher post benefits beyond notional pay for a limited period.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.