Retrospective promotion to a non-existent vacancy for purpose of monetary benefits is legally impermissible.

The respondent, A. Anbu, was appointed as a temporary social forestry worker on September 3, 1984.

Following long temporary service, he was regularized as a "Plot Watcher" in a supernumerary post on August 7, 2009, and subsequently retired from service on June 30, 2017.

Seeking retrospective promotion and pay parity with juniors who were promoted to "Forest Watcher," the respondent filed W.P. No. 27797 of 2023.

The Writ Court allowed the petition on September 26, 2023, following earlier Division Bench precedents.

The State appealed this order, contending that the relief granted exceeded the legal eligibility criteria as the respondent never held the rank of Forest Watcher.

1. Whether an employee regularized in a supernumerary post of Plot Watcher is entitled to claim retrospective promotion and monetary benefits of the post of Forest Watcher after retirement.

2. Whether the High Court is bound to follow previous orders granting similar relief if such orders do not align with established principles of service jurisprudence.

Statement identifying the focus on principles of service jurisprudence regarding retrospective promotion and the finality of retirement.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in A. Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2026 MHC 2249), which held that in the absence of specific pleadings and legal competence, relief cannot be granted in a routine manner based on precedent that ignores statutory provisions.

The Court further emphasized that the High Court must exercise restraint in pay matters and ensure that the "question of law" is decided based on the facts of each case rather than following erroneous precedents that cause loss to the exchequer.

The Court reasoned that since the respondent was regularized only in the supernumerary post of "Plot Watcher" and never actually served as a "Forest Watcher," he cannot seek retrospective promotion to a post he never occupied.

The Court noted that Plot Watcher positions were specifically created as supernumerary to accommodate temporary workers, and possessing the requisite qualifications for a higher post does not automatically entitle an employee to that post without a formal appointment.

The bench criticized the practice of passing "routine orders" based on previous judgments without examining the underlying legal principles, stating that such "unjust gain" to employees results in a "huge financial burden" to the State exchequer.

Consequently, the Court held that service rights must be determined based on the post actually held at the time of retirement.

The Court set aside the Writ Order dated September 26, 2023, and allowed the State’s appeal.

It directed that the respondent is only entitled to benefits admissible to the post of Plot Watcher.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs.