The Gauhati High Court on 18 November 2025 delivered a detailed judgment in a set of three connected writ appeals filed by Dr. Satyajit Paul, a senior engineering educator who retired from Jorhat Engineering College in 2022. The courtroom atmosphere was calm but expectant as the Bench-Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury-took up the matter, which had gathered attention among faculty members across Assam.
Background
Dr. Paul’s legal battle stemmed from a somewhat unusual timeline. Although he was due to retire as an Associate Professor on 31 March 2022, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended him for promotion to Professor (Stage-5) with effect from 17 May 2018, barely a day before his retirement. The formal promotion order arrived on 5 April 2022, four days after he had already stepped out of service.
Read also: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Cancellation and Modification Pleas in Anisur Rahaman Murder Trial
The twist came because this promotion relied on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 28 March 2022, which adopted the AICTE’s extension of deadlines for mandatory training programs under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Later, however, the State withdrew this OM for lacking Finance Department concurrence, calling it invalid. A new OM was issued on 19 May 2023, effectively nullifying Dr. Paul’s promotion.
Left without the benefit of extended retirement age-Professors can serve till 65-Dr. Paul approached the High Court through multiple petitions challenging his release from service and the withdrawal of the 2022 OM.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly returned to one central question: Can a promotion granted after retirement, and based on an invalid executive order, legally extend a person’s service tenure?
Read also: Kerala High Court refuses pre-arrest bail to Kollam cashew trader in ₹25.5-crore money-laundering
The Court noted that while the DPC had recommended Dr. Paul’s promotion before his retirement, the foundation of that recommendation-the OM dated 28 March 2022-had no financial approval and was therefore defective. The Chief Justice remarked at one point, “The recommendation was primarily based on an entitlement that did not survive after the memorandum was withdrawn.”
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Government of West Bengal vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi, which clarified that a promotion becomes effective only when an employee assumes charge of the promoted post. Dr. Paul, however, never assumed charge as Professor before retirement.
Still, the Court acknowledged the peculiarity of his situation. He had completed all qualifying requirements, his eligibility was not in question, and his promotion was under CAS, which does not depend on vacant posts. “There is a clear difference between a regular promotion and CAS advancement,” the Bench observed, drawing a boundary between service extension and retrospective financial recognition.
Read also: J&K High Court Rejects Petition Seeking Skilled-Wages Classification, Says Computer Knowledge
Decision
The High Court modified the earlier single-judge order and granted Dr. Paul only the financial benefits of the Professor’s post-from 17 May 2018 to 31 March 2022, the date of his retirement.
However, the Court firmly rejected his request for extension of service till 2027, stating that “the recommendation for promotion cannot be actually effected after superannuation.” The Court concluded that he must be treated as having retired as an Associate Professor, and his pension will be fixed accordingly.
With this clarification, the appeals were partly allowed, and the long-pending dispute finally settled-at least in terms of service benefits.
Case Title: Dr. Satyajit Paul vs. State of Assam & Others
Case Numbers:
- Writ Appeal No. 191 of 2025
- Writ Appeal No. 184 of 2025
- Writ Appeal No. 193 of 2025
Case Type: Writ Appeals (Service Matter – CAS Promotion & Retirement Dispute)
Decision Date:18 November 2025
