SURENDRA SINGH GAUR versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 22-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURENDRA SINGH GAUR. 
v. 
STA TE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Benefit of past service-Transfer on the volition of the employee-From 
C one Government Department to another-mentioned specifically in the transfer 
order that incumbent to be eligible for seniority from the date of absorption--
Held, on facts, not permissible to be counted towards seniority. 
Appellant was appointed on 18. 10.1967 on the post of Assistant 
D Agriculture. Engineer in the Department of Agriculture in the State of Madhya 
Pradesh. Foreseeing that there were limited chances of promotion in the 
Agriculture department while there were greater chances of promotion in 
the Irrigation department, the appellant, on his volition, requested to be 
transferred and absorbed in the departmer1t of Irrigation. Both the departments 
are separate and maintain their separate seniority lists and the service 
E conditions of the employees in both the departments are governed by their 
respective rules and guidelines. Seniority, in both the departments, is 
computed from the date of appointment in the department .By order dated 
27.1.1981, the Irrigation department accepted the request for transfer and, 
consequently, he was permanently absorbed in the post of Assistant Engineer 
F (Civil) in the Irrigation department from the date of taking over the charge. 
It was specifically mentioned in the order that he shall be eligible for seniority 
in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of taking over the charge. 
The department of Agriculture, however, by order dated 16.7.1982, granted 
the appellant proforma promotion to the post of Agriculture services Class-
1. The appellant made representation to the Irrigation department regarding 
G ex-post facto merger (absorption) on the post of Executive Engineer. While 
refusing to grant relief to the appellant, the Irrigation department gave option 
to the appellant to go back to the Agriculture department. The Agriculture 
department refused to take back the appellant apparently on the ground that 
he had lost his lien in the department and the Agriculture department was 
H 
490 
' 
SURENDRA SINGH GAUR. v. STA TE OF M.P. 
491 
not under any obligation to take back the appellant. The appellant filed writ A 
petition before the High Court which was, subsequently, transferred to the 
M.P. Administrative Tribunal The Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the 
approach of the respondents but directed, keeping in view the well established 
principles of'pay protection' as applicable in Government service, to grant 
financial benefits which the appellant has become entitled to on account of B 
the Performa promotion granted by order dated 16.7.1982 by the Agriculture 
·department. The Irrigation department therefore was directed to give benefit 
of 'pay protection' to the appellant without giving ~igher rank. Hence the 
present appeal 
It was contended by the appellant that there is no provision in the Rules C 
for transfer of an employee from one department to another on personal 
request of a Government servant. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Irrigation 
department could not give benefit of past service in the Agriculture 
department to the appellant, more particularly, when the services of the D 
appellant were not borrowed by the irrigation department but appellant 
voluntarily sought transfer and absorption in the Irrigation department and 
thus has lost his lien in the Agriculture department and ceased to be an 
employee of the Agriculture department. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I.I. Financial benefits accruing to the .appellant because of 
proforma promotion by the Agriculture department by order dated 16.7.1982 
with effect from 29.8.1979 was correctly given. 1497-BI 
E 
2.1. Having sought transfer from Agriculture department, his parent F 
department, to the Irrigation department in his own interest, the appellant 
can't be permitted to take a total somersault just because he was not extended 
the benefit of past service; moreover he has lost his lien in that department 
on absorption in the Irrigation department.1497-C, D, El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 3418 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Orderr dated 7.5.1996 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in T.A. No. 333/1998. 
Petitioner-In-Person. 
G 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Vibha Dat

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