Service rendered in the previous region prior to transfer on compassionate ground

Service rendered in the previous posting is liable to be counted in the new posting areas for purposes of eligibility for consideration of such promotion – Supreme Court Order

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO . 3792 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP(C)No .31728/2018]
PRATIBHA RANI & ORS. … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3793 OF 2019
Arising out of SLP(C)No .32988/2018

O R D E R

Leave granted.

1. The only question which is required to be examined in these cases is whether in case of a compassionate transfer which is inter- region, the service rendered in the previous posting is liable to be counted in the new posting areas for purposes of eligibility for consideration of such promotion.

2. The appellants are working as Tax Assistants and on account of plea of compassionate grounds, they were transferred inter-region. The stand taken by the respondent- Department is that as per the administrative instructions, the period spent in case of inter-region transfer in the previous region, could not be counted while posting such a person 1n a new region for eligibility for promotion.

3. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. C.N. Ponnappan (1996 ) 1 sec 524 where this very issue was examined in the factual context of the same department as under :

“The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred.

4. We may also note that in the context of a different service, on the same principle and noticing c.N. Ponnappan ‘s case (supra), in M .M . Thomas & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors. (2017) 13 sec 122, it was observed as under :

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that the words of the aforesaid Rule require five years’ regular service 11 in the respective regions”. Thus, these words must be understood to mean that the candidates should have served in the respective regions, that is, the regions where they were posted earlier and the region where they seek promotion all together for five years. Thus if a candidate has served in one region and then transferred to another, and seeks promotion in that region, the rule does not require that the candidate must have acquired experience of five years in the region where he seeks promotion, for being considered eligible. What is necessary is a total experience of five years. this must necessarily be so because the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All-India Service, in which the country is demarcated into several regions . In all-India Service, the officers are posted from one region to the other in a routine manner. The purpose of the rule is that such officers are not deprived of their experience in the feeder cadre merely because they have been transferred from one place to another.”

5. Thus, it is quite clear that insofar as issue of eligibility of promotion is concerned, the service rendered in the previous region, prior to transfer on compassionate ground, will be counted towards service for eligibility for consideration of such promotion . That it is a non- transferable job, makes no difference on this aspect as service is rendered in the same cadre.

6. We may note that on the same issue, the petitions filed by the Union of India are dismissed today.

7. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The parties to bear their own costs.

… . . .. . .. … . . .. .J .
[S.A . BOBDE ]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .J .
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J .
[INDIRA BANERJEE ]

NEW DELHI,
APRIL 19, 2919.

ITEM No.4,4.1,4.2

SECTION XV

COURT No.2
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 3479/2816
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-85-2815 in DBCWP No. 5148/2813 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAMESH KUMAR PANWAR

Respondent(s)

WITH
SLP(C)No . 31728/2018 (XIV)
(FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 5184/2819

SLP(C)No . 32988/2018 (XIV)
(WITH APPLN. FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPLN. FOR DIRECTION)

SLP(C)Nos. 14965/2016.21883/2016.1279/2018. D.No . 13496/2017
(With appln(s). for condonation of delay, exemption in respective matters) Date : 19-04-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’ BLE MR . JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
HON’ BLE MR . JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON’ BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. M.K . Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. A. venayagam Balan, AOR
Ms. V. S. Lakshmi, Adv.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG
Ms . Niranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Ray, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

For Respondent (s)

Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR
Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following

O R D E R

SLP(C)No . 3479/2016

We see no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.

SLP(C)Nos. 14965/2016. 21883/2016, 1279/2018. D.No. 13496/2017

Taken on Board.

Delay condoned.

We see no reason to entertain these petitions. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.