Reversion for promotion against unsanctioned posts is valid, but recovery of excess salary is prohibited.

The applicant was appointed as a Driver-Cum-Mechanic at the Institute of Hotel Management (IHM), Guwahati, on 01.01.2000

He was subsequently promoted to Driver Grade II in 2010 and Driver Grade I in 2015, with both promotions being confirmed after probationary periods

In December 2017, an audit by the Ministry of Tourism revealed that only one post of Driver-cum-Mechanic was sanctioned for the Institute and no approval had been obtained for the creation of higher-grade posts

Consequently, the Board of Governors issued impugned orders dated 23.10.2019 and 22.12.2020, declaring the promotions irregular, reverting the applicant to his original post, and ordering recovery of excess salary

The applicant challenged these orders, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice and arguing he was not at fault for the administrative error

1. Whether the promotion of an employee to a higher grade is legally sustainable in the absence of sanctioned posts and prior approval from the nodal Ministry

2. Whether the respondent authorities are entitled to recover excess payments made to the employee following an erroneous promotion

The Tribunal applied the fundamental administrative principle that a promotion is valid only if made against a sanctioned vacancy

It further relied on the landmark precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696, which prohibits the recovery of excess payments from employees when such payments were made by the employer in an erroneous application of rules, without any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee

The Tribunal observed that IHM Guwahati, as an autonomous society funded by the Union of India, is bound by the norms and financial concurrence of the Ministry of Tourism

The court found that the applicant’s promotions to Grade II and Grade I were made under an "inadvertent misconception" by the management, as no such posts had been sanctioned by the Ministry

The Tribunal reasoned that a promotion to an "imaginary post" without a corresponding vacancy or Ministry approval is inherently illegal and lacks the application of mind

Regarding the applicant's plea on natural justice, the Tribunal determined that since the promotions involved unauthorized financial liabilities, the Ministry’s corrective action was valid

The Tribunal distinguished between the legality of the reversion and the recovery of funds, noting that the applicant was not at fault for the administrative mistake

The Tribunal ordered that the excess amounts paid to the applicant during his tenure in Grade II and Grade I shall not be recovered, granting relief under the principles established in Rafiq Masih

No order as to costs was made