The promotion benefits cannot be revoked post-retirement, and recovery of excess payments based on prior administrative error is impermissible. The retiring employee is entitled to all benefits related to their position.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.26.08.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the Petitioner to the rank of Asst. Manager under Grade-IV vide office order dtd.23.06.2022, pursuant to the decision taken by the DPC / Appointment Committee of the Bank in its meeting dtd.22.06.2022 was withdrawn and direction was issued to recover the excess salary drawn from the month of June, 2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that Petitioner while in service under the Opposite Party-Bank as a Senior Asst. in Grade-V, the DPC / Appointment Committee of the Opposite Party-Bank in its proceeding dtd.22.06.2022, resolved and recommended the name of the Petitioner along with others for their promotion to the rank of Asst. Manager Grade-IV in the scale of pay of Rs.8,960/- to Rs.17,720/- w.e.f 01.06.2022. Pursuant to such decision taken by the Appointment Committee in its proceeding dtd.22.06.2022, Petitioner along with others vide order dtd.23.06.2022 under Annexure-1, was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Manager in Grade-IV w.e.f. 01.06.2022 and in the said order name of the Petitioner finds place at S.L. No.15.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after being extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Manager Grade-IV vide order dtd.23.06.2022 w.e.f. 01.06.2022, in terms of the said order, Petitioner not only joined in the promotional post of Asst. Manager so reflected in order dtd.29.06.2022 under Annexure-2, but also his pay was fixed in the promotional post in the scale of pay of Rs.8,960/- to Rs.17,720/-. Petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs.16,400/- w.e.f. 01.06.2022.

4.2. It is further contended that after being so extended with the benefit of promotion and consequential fixation of the pay in the promotional post, Petitioner retired from his services, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. But such benefit of promotion extended in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.23.06.2022 pursuant to the decision of the Appointment Committee dtd.22.06.2022, was withdrawn vide the impugned order dtd.26.08.2022 under Annexure-5, basing on the decision taken by the self-same Appointment committee in its proceeding dtd.25.08.2022.

4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner basing on the order of promotion was allowed to join in the promotional post with due extension of the scale of pay vide order dtd.29.06.2022 under Annexure-2, such benefit cannot be withdrawn with passing of the impugned order dtd.26.08.2022 under Annexure-5, as the Petitioner by the said date had already attained the age of superannuation, having retired on 30.06.2022.

4.4. It is also contended that since the Petitioner was extended with the scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.2022 as per order dtd.29.06.2022, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih so followed in the case of Thomos Daniel, no recovery can be made from the Petitioner, Petitioner being a retired employee. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 18 of the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih and in Para-18 of the judgment in the case of Thomas Daniel has held as follows:-

xxx

xxx

xxx

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their