Can bank withdraw promotion benefits after you retire? Orissa High Court says no in key ruling

“Petitioner had already retired while holding the promotional post on 30.06.2022. Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all such benefits so admissible to the promotional post, including his retirement benefits,” the Orissa High Court said in its April 7 order. 

Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy noted that the assistant manager retired from his role in June 2022.

It was placed on record that the bank in question is a primary co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 

‘Retired with promotional post’

• The high court noted that the petitioner, along with 108 others, was promoted to a different rank, including to the rank of assistant manager in grade IV, by an order of June 2022. 
• It was further noted that based on such order of promotion, the petitioner not only joined in the promotional post but also was extended the benefit of the scale of pay so applicable to the promotional post. 
• It was also placed on record that such a benefit of promotion was withdrawn by an order of August 2022, based on the subsequent decision taken by the same appointment committee. 
• The high court found that since, by the time the subsequent committee in its proceeding resolved and recommended withdrawing the benefit of promotion, the petitioner had already retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on June 30, 2022.
• The Orissa High Court held that neither the decision taken by the appointment committee in its proceedings should be made applicable to the case of the petitioner, nor the order passed by the employer.
• The high court clarified that the petitioner had already retired while holding the promotional post with extension of the scale of pay so applicable to the promotional post, and hence is not liable to refund the excess payment, if any. 
• The Orissa High Court directed the quashing of the August 2022 order so far as it relates to the petitioner and directed the bank to extend all the benefits as due and admissible in his favour in the promotional post of assistant manager, including his retirement benefits. 

Treat as retired on promotional post

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate D Panda argued that his client was extended the benefit of promotion to the rank of assistant manager in Grade-IV from June 1, 2022.  He contended that after being promoted to the said rank, the petitioner not only joined in the promotional post but also his pay was fixed in the promotional post in the scale of pay of Rs 8,960 to Rs 17,720. 

It was further contended that the petitioner later retired from his services, on attaining the age of superannuation on June 30, 2022. Panda added that the benefit of promotion extended in favour of the petitioner was, however, later withdrawn by an order of August 26, 2022 basing on the decision taken by the same appointment committee. 

It was also argued that by the time the benefit of promotion was withdrawn, the petitioner had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and such a withdrawal of the benefit cannot be made applicable to his case.

He mentioned that the petition should be treated as having retired in the promotional post and be eligible and entitled to get his retirement benefits accordingly. 

Promotion was illegal

Representing the bank, advocate Somanath Nanda submitted that since the appointment committee that took the decision of promotion on June 22, 2022, was not authorised to take any such decision. 

It was mentioned that the petitioner, along with the others, was extended the benefit of promotion to the rank of assistant manager, but the subsequent appointment committee later found that the benefit of promotion had been made illegally.

They, therefore, recommended that the benefit of promotion should be withdrawn, the counsel added. 

Nanda further added that, as per the service rule, such an order of promotion was extended on probation, and the probation period was one year from the date of issue of the order. 

It was emphasised that the petitioner, having not completed the probation period, has no vested right to continue in the promotional post.