Holding

A total of five years regular service across all regions satisfies the eligibility requirement; the candidate need not have five years service in the specific region of promotion.

Summary

The appellants, who were Social Security Assistants in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), were transferred to the Kerala region and appeared for a departmental competitive examination for promotion to Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer (EO/AO). Private respondents challenged their inclusion in the rank list, arguing that the EPFO Recruitment Rules, 2002 required five years of service in the region where promotion was sought. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Kerala High Court held that the appellants were ineligible because they had not completed five years in Kerala. The Supreme Court examined the phrase "in the respective regions" and held that it requires a total of five years regular service across all regions, not five years in the specific region of promotion, especially given the all‑India nature of the service. The Court also noted a transfer order that expressly counted past service for eligibility. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders and declaring the appellants eligible for promotion in Kerala.

Issues considered

Whether the EPFO Recruitment Rules, 2002 require a candidate seeking promotion to have five years of regular service in the region where the promotion is sought, or whether total service across regions suffices.

Subjects

promotion eligibilitydepartmental examinationservice tenuretransfer of serviceEmployees' Provident Fund Organisationrecruitment rules interpretationall‑India serviceseniority list

Judgment

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 886

A M. M. THOMAS & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5300-530 I of 2017)
B 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
they had not put in five years service in the Kerala region of EPFO
D 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
E a period offive 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 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.

H
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 G
SCR 177 : (1998) 5 SCC 305 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 220 referred to Para 10
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A (1998] 1 SCR 177 referred to Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5300-
5301 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated I0.08.20 I I of the High Court
'ofKerala at Ernakulam in 0. P. (CAT) Nos. 25 I 8 and 2525 of 2011.
B
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Siddhartha Dave, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Biju P.
Raman, Advs. for the Appellants.
C. S. Rajan, Sr. Adv., A. Raghunath, Prasanth P, Samdarshi Sanjay,
Rajan K. Chourasia, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Joshita Pai, Mayank Sapra,
C Sachin Sharma, Ranjit Kr. Jha, A. Deb Kumar, Praneet Pranav, S. N.
Terdal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. A. BOBDE, J. I. Leave granted.
D 2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the
impugned common judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the
High Court ofKerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.2518 and 2525of2011, whereby
· the High Court affirmed the order dated 19. 7.201 I passed ey the Central
Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam (for short, the 'Tribunal), dismissing
0.A. Nos.723 and 970 of2010, filed by the private party respondents.
E The Tribunal held that the appellants do nofhave the requisite experience
in the Kerala region as on the date on which the vacancies were notified,
and set aside the inclusion of their names in the rank list for promotion
to the post of Enforcement Officer/ Accounts Officer (for short, the
'EO/AO'). The Tribunal further held that ifthe private party respondents
F are otherwise eligible, the official respondents are directed to take steps
to consider their rank obtained in the examination and include their names
in the appropriate place in the rank list for promotion to the post ofEO/
AO. The Tribunal also directed that the next available candidate in the
rank list should be included in the rank list, according to the rank obtained
by them.
G 3. The facts of the case in nutshell. are as follows:
· The appellants were working as Social Security Assistants (SSAs)
in the Kamataka/Tamil Nadu ~egions of the Employees Provident Fund.
Organisation (for short, the 'EPFO'). They were transferred to Kerala
region and kept at the bottom in the seniority list. The riotification was ·
H
M. M. THOMAS & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. . 889
(S. A. BOBDE, J.]

issued to fill up the post of EO/AO in the Kerala region._ Both the A
appellants and the private party respondents participated in the aforesaid
examination. Subsequently, the rank list wa~ published. The appellants
are at Serial No.l,2,4 and 5 respectively in the rank list and the promotion
list. It was contended by the private party respondents that the inclusion
of the names ofthe appellants in these lists is arbitrary and illegal, because B
they were not eligible.
4. The rule that governs the eligibility of the appellants reads as
follows:
In case of recruitment by (j) PROMOTION (OTHER_TIIAN
promotion/deputation' E.XMIINATION QUOTA): c
absorption, grade from
which promotion/ )
deputation/absoiption to (ii) BYPROMOTION ON TIIE '
be made. BASIS OF DEPARTMENTAL)
COJl.IPETITIVE EXAJl.IINATION
D
Ji [Section Supen-isor AND Junior
Hindi nanslaton\ith3 years
regular service in the scale of
Rs.5000-8000/- and DEO (Grade.(;}
\\ith three years' regular senice in
the scale ofRs.5000-8000/- E
including those DEO (Grade,C)-
who have already put in 5 years'
regular sen-ice in DEO (Grade.A)
and Soda! Security
Assistants/Assistants/Stenographers/
and DEO (grade-A and B)with 5 F
yearsregular senice in the scale of
Rs.4000-6000/-in the respective
regions]

G
5. The appeUants as also the private party respondents passed the
departmental competitive examination for the post ofEO/AO.
Apprehending that the appellants will be promoted earlier, the
private party respondents approached the Tribunal by way of filing original
H.
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JS.C.R.

A applications. The Tribunal allowed the said applications and held that the
appellants herein were not treated as qualified for promotion i.e. eligible
on the ground that they had not put in five years' service in the Kerala
region ofEPFO, having relied on the words in the above quoted Rule
which requires five years' regular service "in the respective regions".

.. · B 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed original petitions before
the High Court which were also dismissed. Hence these appeals by
special leave.
7. Thus, the only issue before us is whether under the aforesaid
Rule, the candidates who seek promotion through departmental
c competitive examination for the post ofEO/AO, should have served,
both in their earlier place of posting and their present place of poJting 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
Kerala region.
D 8. Having heard 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 "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
E 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
F five years. 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 are not deprived of their experience in the
feeder cadre merely because they have been transferred from one place
G to another.
9. It might be noticed that in the transfer order of the appellants
bearing No.HRM-111/14/i/07/IRT/Genl. Dated 19.06.2008, issued by
Regional PF Commissioner (HRM), EPFO, Ministry of Labour,
Government oflndia, and addressed to the Regional PF Commissioners
H
M. M. THOMAS & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 891
[S. A. BOBDE, J.]

in-charge of the Region Tamil Nadu, the following is stated as a condition A
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 our view regarding the B
intent and purpose of the promotion rule.
l 0. In a similar context, this court in Union ofIndia & others vs.
C.N. Ponnappan held that an employee who is transferred from one
1

unit to another on compassionate ground, though placed at the bottom of
seniority list is entitled to have the service rendered at an earlier unit, C
counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotion in the unit in which he
is transferred. It was observed in Para 4 as follows:
"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 D
is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for 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 services, being regular service in the E
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 ............ "
When confronted once again with the similar question in Scientific F
Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Am: vs. V.MJoseph 2, this court relying
on earlier decision in Union of India (supra) held that the length of service
rendered on an equivalent post iii' another organization before the transfer
counts, for determining the eligibility for promotion though such service
may not count for seniority.
G
11. Hence, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High court as also the aforesaid order/s of the
Tribunal inGofar as these appellants are concerned, and hold that the
1
(1996) i sec 524
'(1998) 5 sec 305
H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A appellants are entitled to be treated as eligible and qualified for promotion
in the Kerala region for the post ofEO/AO in the Employees Provident
Fund Organisation.
12. The interlocutory application for impleadment is rejected.

B
Devika Gujral Appeals .allowed.