P. SATYANARAYANA RAO & ANR. ETC.versusS.V.P. SARVANI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1380
- Decided
- 2 December 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A transfer made at the employee’s own request results in a fresh appointment for seniority, so earlier service does not count toward seniority in the new post.
Summary
The case concerned the seniority of a Junior Assistant who moved from a Category‑11 post in a subordinate Commercial Tax office to a Category‑10 post in the Head of Department's office under the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules. The employee claimed that his seniority in the new post should be counted from his original appointment date. The Supreme Court examined Rule 27(1)(iii), which provides that when a member is transferred at his own request, seniority in the receiving department is fixed from the date of his first appointment there. The Court held that making an application for transfer constitutes a transfer at the employee’s own request, and therefore the employee is deemed to have a fresh appointment for seniority purposes. Consequently, the employee could not carry forward his earlier service for seniority, and the High Court’s rejection of his claim was upheld. The appeals (Nos. 7360‑7361) were dismissed, while related appeals (Nos. 7359/2002 & 2548‑2549/2004) were allowed, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules on seniority when an employee transfers at his own request?
- Whether an employee who applies for transfer can claim seniority from his original appointment in the previous post.
Subjects
Judgment
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1075
P. SATYANARAYANA RAO & ANR. ETC. A
~
v.
S.V.P. SARVANI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7360-7361 of 2002)
DECE:MBER 2, 2008
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
.... i
ANDHRA PRADESH MINISTERIAL SERVICE RULES:
r. 27(1 )(iii) - Junior Assistant in category 11 in
subordinate office in Commercial Tax Department - Making
c
an application for his transfer to office of Head of the
Department on the post of Junior Assistant in category-10 -
Claiming seniority on the post of category 10 from the date
of his initial appointment on the post in category 11 - HELD:
D
In the instant case, r.27(1)(iii) squarely applies - When a
person makes an application for transfer, it is a transfer at his
~·
own request - In view of r.27(1)(iii), claimant will be deemed
"" to have been given a fresh appointment on hisjoining in office
of Head of the Departmenr for purposes of seniority- There
is ·no error in the judgment of High Court rejecting claim of 'E
the employee.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil ·Appeal Nos.
7360-7361 of 2002.
.F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Prade,sh at Hyderabad in Writ '
Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999.
I
WITH
'G
Civil Appeal Nos. 7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004 .
.. >
I. Venkatanarayana, J.R. Manohar Rao, G. Ramakrishna ·
Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapandeni, Siddharth Patnaik, Amar Pal, '
1075 H '
t
t-
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A R. Santhanakrishnan, Radha Rani, Vijay Kumar, D. Mahesh ,.__
Babu, Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V.
George, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P. (for Mis. P.S.N.
& Co.), Anil Kumar Tandale and D. Bharathi Reddy (N.P) for
·the appearing parties.
B ihe following Order of the Court was delivered : .
ORDER r ..:
In Civil A1u~eal Nos.7360~7361/2002:
c 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The dispute in this case is about the inter-se ~eniority
between the parties. It may be noted that the post of Junior
Assistant in the subordinate office in the Commercial Taxes
D Department is a Category-11 post under the A.P. Ministerial
Service Rules and the minimum qual.ification for appointment
on the said post is Intermediate~ 6n the other hand, the post of -i
Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the Department is
a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is
E Graduation.
3. Rule 27(1 )(iii) of the aforesaid Rules states:
"The seniority of a member of the service who is
transferred at his own request from one Department or
F office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or
office with reference to the date of his first appointment in ~ .
the latter department or office~ .. II
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted thal the
appellant was transferred from the subordinate office to the
G
office of Head of the Department not at his request but on his
making an application. We regret we cannot see any ,(_ ~
difference. When a person makes an application for transfer,
it is obviously a transfer at his own request. Hence, in our
opinion, Rule 27(1 )(iii) squarely applies. In this case, the
H
P. SATYANARAYANA RAO & ANR. ETC. v. S.V.P. 1077
SARVANI & ORS. ETC.
appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office A
~
of the Head of Departrnent at his own request. If he did not wish
to forego his service in the subordinate service, he need not
have made any such request and would have remained in the
subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the
office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the B
consequences of such transfer and he cannot claim that his
service in the subordinate office must be added to his service
~ --.
in the office of the Head of Department for the purpose of
seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh
appointment on his joining in the office of the Head of c
Department for the purposes of seniority, in view of Rule
27(1 )(iii) of the Rules. Thus, in our opinion, there is no error in
the impugned judgment of 'he High Court.
5. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order
as to costs. D
In Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 & 2548-2549/2004:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. For the reasons given in our judgment in C.A.Nos.7360- E
7361/2002, these Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned
judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.
No order as to costs.
F
R.P. Appeals allowed.
"
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.