The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, November 27, that an employee whose promotion was not finalized before retirement is not entitled to retrospective promotion or any associated notional benefits. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta. The Court stated that “promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.” This observation arose during the hearing of an appeal filed by the State of West Bengal against the grant of notional benefits to an employee, identified as respondent No. 1, whose promotion to Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) was approved only after his superannuation.

Previously, the High Court had upheld a decision by the Administrative Tribunal, which found that the appellant’s delay in effectuating the promotion before the employee’s retirement justified granting him benefits associated with the promotional post. Instead of ordering retrospective promotion under Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, the Tribunal had directed the state to provide the corresponding financial benefits.

The Supreme Court considered whether an employee recommended for promotion before retirement but unable to assume the position due to administrative delays could claim notional benefits post-retirement. The appellant-State Government argued that retrospective promotions are not recognized in service law unless explicitly provided by specific rules or in exceptional circumstances. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, it contended, expressly precludes such retrospective promotions.

The bench, finding merit in the State’s argument, ruled against granting even notional benefits to respondent No. 1. Justice Mehta, authoring the judgment, noted that since the employee had neither assumed the role of CSO nor served in that capacity, granting retrospective benefits would be unwarranted. The Court reiterated, “promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.”

Citing the precedent set in Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024), the Court clarified that promotions take effect only when granted, not from the date a vacancy arises or a post is created. It further reasoned that an employee cannot be retrospectively promoted to a cadre to which they were not officially assigned during their service period.

The Court also emphasized that Rule 54(1)(a) prevents retrospective promotion when an employee has not formally assumed the responsibilities of the higher post. “In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision,” the Court stated.

Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal, setting aside the previous decisions that granted notional benefits.

Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS DR. AMAL SATPATHI & ORS.

Date: November-27-2024

Bench: Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Sandeep Mehta.