Promotion Recommended After Superannuation Cannot Extend Service: Gauhati High Court Grants Only Notional Professor Benefits To Retired Engineering College Teacher
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury has held that continuation in service on the basis of a promotion recommended after superannuation is impermissible in law and that such recommendation cannot be acted upon once the employee has retired. The case concerned a former engineering college teacher’s claim to continue as Professor until 65 years under the Career Advancement Scheme and objection to withdrawal of a government memorandum on eligibility. The Bench directed grant of notional financial benefits of the Professor’s post from the deemed date of promotion till retirement, while pension remains tied to the lower substantive post.
The appellant, an Associate Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in an engineering college and later in-charge Principal of the newly established Golaghat Engineering College, claimed promotion to the post of Professor. In July 2021, the State issued an office memorandum raising the superannuation age of Professors under CAS from 60 to 65 years. Relying on an AICTE public notice extending the last date for completing mandatory training programmes to 31 December 2018, the college submitted a scrutiny report certifying that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements. A Departmental Promotion Committee then recommended his promotion as Professor with effect from May 2018, but the promotion notification was issued only after he retired on 31 March 2022 and he was treated as having superannuated as Associate Professor.
In subsequent writ proceedings, the authorities filed an affidavit stating that the earlier office memorandum adopting the AICTE notice had been withdrawn and that a fresh memorandum dated May 2023, issued with Finance Department concurrence, now governed the field. The appellant challenged the withdrawal, the later memorandum and the assertion that his promotion order had lapsed, arguing that promotion from May 2018 entitled him to serve till 65. The respondents relied on the AICTE and UGC notices and Rule 10 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, to justify withdrawal and to contend that promotion based on the earlier memorandum was invalid without prior financial concurrence.
The Court observed that the appellant “was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from a retrospective date but such decision was taken after his superannuation.” It recorded that although the DPC recommended him for promotion one day prior to retirement, the recommendation “was primarily based on an entitlement created by virtue of Office Memorandum dated 28.03.2022, which ultimately stood withdrawn for lack of financial approval.” The Bench stated that the appellant “could not assume the responsibilities of the post of Professor as he was released from service on 31.03.2022.”
The Court stated that extending his service tenure to 2027 “would not be in accordance with law,” because “the recommendation for promotion cannot be actually effected after superannuation.” It further observed that since the promotion was under CAS, “any promotion under such scheme to be made notionally effective would not require any vacant post.” The Court recorded the communication of the Principal of Jorhat Engineering College that from the retrospective date of promotion until retirement, the appellant “would perhaps be entitled for financial benefits but only when the relevant Payslip is received.”
The Bench noted that while the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amal Satpathi denied retrospective financial benefits to an employee who had not served in the promoted post, the same principle would not apply “proprio-vigore in the case of the appellant herein, who was the in-charge Principal and was promoted specifically with retrospective date vide a Notification issued post his retirement, which, in turn, was based on a Scheme (CAS) and only after it was found that he fulfilled the criteria.”
The Court finally recorded that the appellant “would be entitled for only the financial benefits of the higher post of Professor from 17.05.2018… till the date of his superannuation on 31.03.2022,” and that following withdrawal of the 28.03.2022 Office Memorandum, “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 directed that “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 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 appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate; Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department; Mr. S. Das, Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department; Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel, Accountant General
Case Title: Dr. Satyajit Paul v. State of Assam & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:15584
Case Number: Writ Appeal Nos. 191/2025, 184/2025, 193/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar; Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
