Promotion After Retirement Can't Extend Service, But Notional Monetary Benefits Allowed Till Superannuation: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that extension of service on the basis of a promotion recommended after superannuation is not permissible in law and that such recommendation cannot be given effect to once the employee has already retired. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, said, “Thus, giving the appellant an extension of his service...
The Gauhati High Court has held that extension of service on the basis of a promotion recommended after superannuation is not permissible in law and that such recommendation cannot be given effect to once the employee has already retired.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, said, “Thus, giving the appellant an extension of his service tenure till the year 2027 would not be in accordance with law. The recommendation for promotion cannot be actually effected after superannuation.”
“However, since the appellant was promoted under the CAS, based on fulfilling the eligibility criteria unlike regular promotions, any promotion under such scheme to be made notionally effective would not require any vacant post,” the bench added.
The above ruling was made in a writ appeal whereby the Court clarified that only limited financial benefits could flow from the retrospective promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme.
As per the factual matrix of the case, Dr. Satyajit Paul, the appellant, had been promoted to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme with retrospective effect from 2018. The Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his name a day prior to his superannuation, but the notification of promotion was issued only after his retirement in 2022. The State later withdrew the Office Memorandum, which had formed the basis for such promotion, and asserted that the promotion ceased to have effect.
While examining the matter, the Court noted, “The appellant, therefore, could not assume the responsibilities of the post of Professor as he was released from service on 31.03.2022, but as noted above, till his retirement, he continued as having promoted from the retrospective date.”
Further, the Court further held, “Thus, in our estimation, the appellant would be entitled for only the financial benefits of the higher post of Professor from 17.05.2018, i.e. the notional date from which he was promoted till the date of his superannuation on 31.03.2022. However, since the order of promotion lapsed with the recall of the Office Memorandum dated 28.03.2022, he shall be deemed to have retired as an Associate Professor and his pension would be fixed on the salary of Associate Professor which he had been getting.”
The Court concluded by modifying the single judge's judgment, “The judgment impugned is thus modified to the extent by clarifying that the appellant would only be entitled for financial benefits associated with the post of Professor from 17.05.2018 to 31.03.2022 and no further.”
The Court accordingly held that the appellant would stand retired as Associate Professor, with pension fixed on that basis, but would receive only the financial benefits of the higher post for the limited period specified, and no entitlement to extension of service could be claimed on the strength of the retrospective promotion.
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 191 of 2025
Case Title: Dr. Satyajit Paul v. State of Assam & Ors.