LexM. M. THOMAS & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 3 S.C.R. 886 M. M. THOMAS & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5300-530 I of 2017) APRIL 17,2017 [S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] Employees 'Provident Fund Organisation (EOIAO) Recruitment Rules, 2002 - Promotion - Appellants working as Social Security C Assistants in Karnataka/Tami/ Nadu regions of EPFO - Transferred to Kera la region - Departmental examination - Post of EOIA 0 in Kerala region - Participation of appellants challenged by private party respondents on the ground that they were not eligible - Tribunal held that appellants were not qualified for promotion as D E they had not put in five years service in the Kerala region of EPFO as per the Rules which require five years regular service in the respective regions - Whether under the Recruitment Rules, 2002, the candidates who seek promotion through departmental competitive examination for the post of EO/AO, should have served, both in their earlier place of posting and their present place of posting for a period of five years, or whether the candidates should have served for five years in the region where they seek promotion, which in this case is Kera/a region - Held: 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 requisite experience in the region where he seeks promotion, F for being considered eligible - This must necessarily be so because the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All India Services, 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 G H are not deprived of their experience in the feeder cadre merely because they have been transferred from one place to another - What is necessary is a total experience of five years - Appellants are entitled to be treated as qualified for promotion in the Kera/a region for the post of EOIAO in the EPFO. 886 M. M. THOMAS & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 887 Allowing the appeals, the Court A HELD: 1.1 The words "in the respective regions" 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 . B 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 b!! so because the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All C India Services, 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 D one place to another. [Paras 7, 8][890-E-G] 1.2In the transfer order of the appellants Dated 19.06.2008, issued by Regional PF Commissioner (HRM), EPFO, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, and addressed to the Regional PF Commissioners in-charge of the Region Tamil Nadu, the E following is stated as a condition of transfer : "His/her past service rendered in cadre of SSA will be counted for the purpose -- of appearing in the departmental examination ........... ". The above condition of transfer fortifies view regarding the intent and purpose of the promotion rule. The appellants are entitled to be treated as eligible and qualified for promotion in the Kerala region F for the post of EO/AO in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. [Paras 9, 11][890-G-H; 891-A-B; 892-A) Union of India & others v. C.N. Ponnappan (1995) 6 Suppl. SCR 220 : (1996) 1 SCC 524; Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Anr. vs. V.M. Joseph [199~) 1 SCR 177 : (1998) 5 SCC 305 - referred to. Case Law Reference [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 220 referred to Para 10 G H 888 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. (1998] 1 SCR 177 referred to Para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5300- 5301 of2017. From the Judgment and Order date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.