LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DEO NARAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 402 A UNION OF INDIA & ORS. , , v. DEO NARAIN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8017 of 2003) B SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 ,. . (C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Service Law- Promotion - From the post of LDC to UDC c - Non- consideration for - Of the employees transferred from parent department to another on compassionate ground - By not counting their past services in the parent department - Propriety of - Held: Non-consideration of such employees !'or promotion is not illegal or unlawful - The employees having D taken the transfer voluntarily foregoing their past services as ..... a condition therefor as per the existing rules, cannot claim seniority over the employees ir; the transferee department - Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979. E Respondents joined their services as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). Later they were transferred from their parent department on voluntarily opting for the same in accor- dance with the policy of lnter-Collectorate Transfers. Con- sequently, as per rules, they were placed at the bottom of F the seniority list in the new department, losing their se- ~ ~ niority in the parent department. In view of their low posi- tion in the seniority list, they were not considered for pro- motion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). They filed applications before Central Administrative Tribunal G aggrieved by their non-consideration and non-promotion. Tribunal allowing their applications directed the authori- ties to consider the eligible applicants for the ·promotion, by taking into account their past regular services rendered .... in the parent department. High Court dismissed the writ H 402 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DEO NARAIN 403 + & ORS. petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. Hence the A present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 As early as in 1980, a policy decision was ~ ~ taken by the appellants that when any LDC working in B one Collectorate seeks transfer to another Collectorate on compassionate ground, the said action can only be taken on the terms and conditions of the decision of the Government of India, dated May 20, 1980. In that case, he/ she will not be entitled to get his/her service rendered in c the former Collectorate to be counted for the purpose of seniority and will be placed at the bottom of the list of employee's in the transferred Collectorate. [Paras· 20 and 21] [411·8-C; 411-E] , .. 1.2 The respondents got themselves transferred to D new Collectoraie and they had, in consonance with the policy decision of May 20, 1980, foregone their seniority in the Collectorate where they were working and were placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the new Collectorate where they were transferred •. Hence, place- E ment of the respondents at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee Collectorate was legal and valid, is well founded and in consonance with the decision of the Cen- . tral Government. [Para 22] [411-F-G] .... 1.3 Generally, an employee who is transferred to other F Collectorate does not lose his/her past service for the purpose of considering his/her eligibility. But, if such transfer is voluntary or unilateral on condition that he/she will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list irt the trans- feree Department, the said condition would bind him/her G and he/she cannot claim seniority over the employees in Ji>·-· the transferee Department. [Para 34] [416-F-G] 1.4 The two concepts, viz. (i) 'eligibility' and (ii) 'senior- ity' are quite distinct, different and independent of each H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~ A other. A person may be eligible, fit or qualified to be con- sidered for promotion. It does not, however, necessarily mean that he must be treated as having requisite 'senior- ity' for entry in the zone of consideration. Even if he fulfils the first requirement, but does not come within the zone of B consideration in the light of his position and placement in . ~ 'seniority' and the second condition is not fulfilled, he can- not claim consideration merely on the basis of his eligibil- ity or qualification. It is only at the time when 'seniority' cases of other employees similarly placed are considered c that his case must ~lso be considered. [Para 29] [414-C-F] Union oflndia and Ors. v. C.N. Ponnappan, 1996 (1) SCC 524; Renu Mullick (Smt) v. Union of India
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.