P. BHASKARAN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 23-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P. BHASKARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
SeTVice Law-Seni01ity-Ad hoc promotion-Whether seniors refusing 
option of ad hoc promotion on transfer still retain seniority over their juniors 
who get promoted on exercising such option-Per Govemment policy, seni01ity 
of junior protected subject to ntle of rese1vation and qualification-On facts, 
held juniors not entitled to seniority as the seniors were neither given the 
option, nor did they refuse. 
Appellant were working as LDCs in the Western Zone of the Office 
A 
B 
c 
of the Controller of Imports and Exports at Ahmedabad. There was a 
common seniority list for the whole zone. Though the Appellants were D 
junior to the Respondents, they were given the option of ad hoc promotion 
on transfer in 1980 itself which they exercised, while such option was given 
to the respondents only in 1981 and hence they became senior to the 
RP-spondents. As per the Government policy set out in the circular issued 
by the respective Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, from time 
to time, an LDC can be transferred from one place to another on ad hoc 
promotion on his exercising the option for such transfer-cum-promotion. 
If however, the number of vacancies is less than the number of persons 
exercising the option, then seniority will be the criteria for consideration. 
If the seniormost refuses, then juniors may be promoted and they will be 
given seniority over the seniors who refused the option. 
The Respondents who were senior to the Appellants in the LDC 
cadre and were also promoted in 1981 filed a Writ Petition challenging the 
seniority of the Appellant inter alia, on the ground that they were not given 
E 
F 
the option in 1980. The CAT, held that since the Appellants were promoted G 
only on ad hoc basis it would not rob the Respondents of their seniority 
though they were promoted later since they were senior to the Appellants 
in the LDC cadre. The CAT directed the seniority list to be revised 
accordingly. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was pleaded before this Court that, H 
625 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995]SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
on account of the Government policy, though the Appellants were 
promoted on an ad hoc basis, it must be taken that the promotion was on 
regular basis and their seniority should be reckoned from the date of their 
actual promotion vis-a- vis the respondents. 
B 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. When the Appellants were promoted in the year 1980, the 
Respondents were not informed of the right to exercise the option for 
transfer on promotion nor they refused to give option on that basis. Since 
they admittedly are seniors to the Appellants as LDCs in the absence of 
C their refusal, they cannot be made to lose their seniority in the cadre as 
UDCs for no fault of theirs merely because the Appellants were promoted 
in 1980 overlooking the claims of the Respondents 5 & 6. Accordingly on 
facts, the direction issued by the Tribunal is illegal. [630-D-E] 
2. It is seen that in case senior LDCs were not willing to go on 
D transfer after promotion, though on ad hoc basis, and if the juniors had 
accepted and opted for transfer on promotion, the juniors would get 
seniority as UDCs over their seniors in the LDC cadre. The seniors who 
were obviously unwilling for transfer on promotion, were willing to forego 
seniority as LDCs and that thereby the juniors who opted for transfer on 
E 
promotion, scale a march over the seniors in the cadre as promotee UDCs. 
The aforesaid circular would give them the said right. The ratio is quite 
consistent with the circular issued by the Joint Controller of Imports and 
Exports. [629-C-D; G] 
Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras andAnr. v. V.V. 
F 
Ramanarao and Ors., W.A. No. 116/84 decided on December 24, 1987 by 
A.P. High Court, affirmed. 
3. Due to administrative exigencies when the options were given to 
the senior UDCs for transfer on promotion though ~n ad hoc basis since 
they were not willing for such a transfer by promotion, the administrative 
G exigencies do require that the posts need to be filled up from junior LDCs 
who had exercised their option for transfer by promotion as UDCs and get 
seniority in the cadre as UDCs though in .the cadre as LDCs they were 
juniors. They get seniority from the date of their initial promotion though 
on an ad hoc basis. When they were regularly working as 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.