Retrospective promotions are impermissible under Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, as financial benefits can only be granted upon actual assumption of the promoted post.

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the Government of West Bengal1 and its components, challenging the judgment dated 1st February, 20232 passed by the High Court at Calcutta, in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court vide impugned judgment upheld the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal3, which directed that respondent No. 1, Dr. Amal Satpathi, though not Signature Not Verified Digitaly signed by KANCHAN CHOUHAN Date: 2024.11.27

16:24:26 IST

Reason:

1 Hereinafter being referred to as “appellant No. 1”.

2 Hereinafter being referred to as “Impugned judgment”.

3 Hereinafter being referred to as “Tribunal”.

entitled to retrospective promotion after his superannuation, should be awarded notional financial benefits for the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer as of his retirement date i.e., 31st December, 2016. The appellants are aggrieved by this direction, contending that no financial benefits, even on a notional basis, are admissible to respondent No. 1 who never assumed charge of the promotional post.

Brief Facts: -

4. Respondent No.1, Dr. Amal Satpathi, was promoted to the post of Principal Scientific Officer on an officiating basis on 24th March, 2008. On 6th January, 2016, following an amendment to the relevant Recruitment Rules, respondent No.1 became eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer. The Department4 initiated the promotional process by approaching the Public Service Commission5 on 13th April, 2016. The PSC, vide its minutes dated 29th December, 2016, recommended the name of respondent No.1 for the promotion to the said post. However, the Department received the final approval for his promotion on 4th January, 2017, but by that time, respondent No.1 had already superannuated on 31st December, 2016. Respondent No.1 made

4 Science and Technology Department

5 In short, ‘PSC’

a representation to the Department to give effect to his promotion. The matter was then referred to the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. The reply of the Finance Department is extracted below: -

“In terms of rule 54(1)(a) of W.B.S.R. Part-I, a Govt. employee shall not draw pay higher than that of his permanent post unless the officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance.

In the instant case Dr. Amal Satpathi could not join to the promotional post within his service tenure. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. As a result officiation to the higher post with greater responsibilities and importance does not arise.

As such appointment on promotion after retirement with retrospective effect can not be awarded for Gr.-'A' posts.

We are, therefore, of the same opinion stated by F.A., dated 16.2.2017.”

5. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from promotion, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 555 of 2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 26th June, 2019 observed that, as per Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules , Part-I of 19716, promotion cannot be granted retrospectively after the retirement of a Government employee. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that respondent No. 1 had been duly recommended for promotion before his superannuation, which

6 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘ West Bengal Service Rules ’

was only delayed due to procedural obstructions beyond his control. Therefore, while actual promotion was not acceded to, the Tribunal directed that respondent No.1 should be granted notional financial benefits of the promotional post with effect from 31st December, 2016, to ensure pensionary benefits commensurate with the promotional post.

6. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court in WPST No. 157 of 2019. The High Court, vide judgment dated 1st February, 2023 dismissed the writ petition, concurring with the Tribunal that retrospective promotion was impermissible but noting that notional financial benefits were justified given