PROMOTION CANNOT BE GRANTED POST-RETIREMENT WITHOUT SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION.

The applicant, Awadh Kishor Shah, joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on October 22, 1984.

He received promotions to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in 1986, Head Clerk/Section Supervisor in 1991, and Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer (EO/AAO) on an ad-hoc basis on November 16, 1996.

His EO/AAO promotion was regularized by orders dated November 3, 2000, September 11, 2001, and finally approved as a regular promotion by order dated September 4, 2006, in compliance with a Central Administrative Tribunal order.

Despite repeated requests for seniority revision and claims of eligibility for promotion to Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) based on seniority lists of 2010 and 2017 and relevant rules, his case was not considered.

The respondents stated that supernumerary posts in the APFC cadre were created to address stagnation and promote EO/AOs up to the 1999 batch, with the applicant being a regular EO/AO from March 1, 2006.

The applicant superannuated from service during the pendency of the Original Application.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to promotion to the next higher post according to his seniority after his superannuation from service.

2. Whether promotion can be granted to a retired employee in the absence of a specific statutory provision.

The court primarily relied on the principle that promotion, being a condition of service, is applicable only during the continuance of employment, and no enforceable right survives for a retired employee to seek consideration for promotion or seniority unless specifically provided by statutory rules.

It cited the Supreme Court's ruling in *Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpati & Ors., 2024*, which held that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post, not on the date of vacancy or recommendation, and thus, a superannuated employee is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated with a promotional post if they did not serve in that capacity.

The judgment also implicitly refers to Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, which stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw commensurate pay.

The court applied the rule that promotion is a condition of service applicable only during active employment.

Given that the applicant had already retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation during the course of the hearing, the court determined that the question of granting promotion no longer arose.

Citing *Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpati & Ors., 2024*, the court underscored that promotion is effective only upon the assumption of duties and not upon the mere recommendation or occurrence of a vacancy.

Since the applicant did not assume duties on the promotional post before retirement, he had no surviving enforceable right to seek promotion or seniority in the absence of any specific statutory rule providing for such relief after superannuation.

While acknowledging the fundamental right to be considered for promotion, the court clarified that there is no absolute right to promotion itself, especially after retirement.

It held that promotion is a condition of service applicable during the continuance of employment, and no enforceable right survives in favour of a retired employee to seek consideration for promotion unless specifically provided by statutory rules.

Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed.