Holding

Service rendered at an earlier permanent posting must be counted towards promotion eligibility, and seniority and eligibility are distinct factors; thus the Tribunal's direction to ante‑date the promotion is upheld.

Summary

The respondent, a permanent Store Keeper in the Ministry of Defence, requested a compassionate transfer to another location where he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list. He claimed that his service before the transfer should count towards the three‑year regular service requirement for promotion, seeking ante‑dated promotion to Senior Store Keeper and later to Senior Store Keeper, Grade‑I. The Departmental Promotion Committee excluded his earlier service, denying promotion, but the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that his earlier permanent service be counted and ordered his promotion. The Supreme Court examined whether a compassionate transfer and placement at the bottom of the seniority list can exclude prior service for promotion eligibility. It held that prior permanent service must be counted, as eligibility for promotion is distinct from seniority, and affirmed the Tribunal’s direction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether service rendered at a previous posting before a compassionate transfer should be counted towards the qualifying period for promotion eligibility.
Whether placement at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred post affects eligibility for promotion.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to ante‑date the respondent's promotion is legally valid.

Subjects

promotion eligibilitysenioritycompassionate transferservice lawdepartmental promotion committeecentral administrative tribunalante‑dating promotion

Judgment

SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI A
.v.
-t:
V.M. JOSEPH

JANUARY 14, 1989

B
·-)._~ [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
>c

Service Law :

Promotion-Eligibility-LDC in Ministry of Defence-Rendered more
than 3 years ofservice as permanent employee-Transferred on compassionate
c
ground on request of employee-Employee placed at the bottom of seniority
list at transferred place-Held, period of service rendered by the employee
at earlier place cannot be excluded from consideration in determining his
eligibility for promotion-Eligibility and seniority are two distinct and
different factors. D
I
·~ Respondent was a Lower division Clerk in the Ministry of Defence. He
. appointed as a Store Keeper and become permanent on April 27, I971. On
June 6, 1977 he was transferred, on his request on compassionate ground
and was placed at the bottom of the Seniority list of Store Keeper there. On
August 22, 1980 the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Store E
Keeper.

In the meanwhile, a new post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I was
created as an intermediate grade between Senior Store Keeper and Store
Superintendent. One of his immediate senior was promoted to this
intermediate grand. The respondent claimed that he should have also be
F
_.f
'"' promoted to the intermediate Grade-I along with his senior as he should
have been promoted to Senior Store Keeper.on January 31, 1978 instated of
February 22, t 980. When his claim was not entertained he filed a writ
petition. High Court directed the appellants to consider the claim of the
respondent for ante-dating his promotion on ad hoc basis by applying the G
same rules and principles on which his immediate senior was promoted .
......
The Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the claim
passed an order that the respondent had completed 3 years of his regular
service as Store Keeper commencing from June 6, I977, only of June 7,
I 980 and he could not be promoted as Senior Store Keeper earlier than H
177
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A 1980. The respondent challenged the order before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, which allowed the claim of the respondent and direeted the appellants
to reckon the period during which the respondent worked as a permanent
Store Keeper prior to his transfer as a period of qualifying service for the
purpose of eligibility for promotion and consider the respondent for promotion
as Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I with effect from the date could be deemed
B to have put in three years of regular service as Senior Store Keeper. Hence,
this appeal.

The appellant contended that since the respondent had been transferred
on compassionate ground, on his own request to the post of Store Keeper and
C was placed at the bottom of seniority list, the period of 3 years could be
deemed to commence only from the date on which he was transferred.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Even if an employee is transferred at his own request from
D one place to another, on the same post, the period of service rendered by him
at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired
permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining
his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom
of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot
be confused with seniority, as they are two different and distinct factors. So,
E the direction of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. (181-B-D)

Union of India & Ors. v. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR (1996) SC 764 = (1996)
1 sec 524, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3749of1992.
F
Frnm the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.88 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Madras High Court in O.A. No. 573/86.

rvts. Sashi Kiran, Ms. Anil Katiyar and P. Parmeshwaran for the
Appellants.
G
Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The respondent was appointed as a Lower
H Division Clerk on November 15, 1969 in the Ministry of Defence. Subsequently,
SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI ''- V.M. JOSEPH [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 179
in the same Department, he was appointed as a Store Keeper on 27th April, A ·
1971 in the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune. He got the status of quasi permanent
on 27th April, 1974 and became permanent with effect from !st May, 1974. The
respondent made a request for his transfer as a Store Keeper in the Naval
Physical Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Cochin, which was accepted on
compassionate gro\lnd and on 6th June, 1977, he was transferred to that post, B
but was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Store Keepers there. On
f. 22nd August, I 980, the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Store
Keeper.

On 15th July, 1980, a new post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I was
created as an intermediate grade between the posts of Senior Store Keeper C
and Store Superintendent. One A.K. Anujan, who was the immediate senior
of the respondent in the Grade of Senior Store Keeper was promoted to this
intermediate post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade- I on 3 I st August, 1982. The
respondent raised a claim that he should have been promoted as Senior Store
Keeper on 3 Ist January, 1978 instead of 22nd February, 1980 and should have
been further promoted to the post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I, on 31st D
August, 1982 along with his next senior A.K. Anujan. When this claim was
not entertained, the respondent approached the Kerala High Court by a Writ
Petition (No. O.P. 10013 of 1982-J) which was allowed on 30.7.85 and a
direction was issued to the present appellants to consider the claim of the
respondent for ante-dating his promotion on ad hoc basis by applying the E
same rules and principles on which, his immediate senior, A.K. Anujan, was
promoted to the post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I.

In pursurance of the above judgment, the case of the respondent was
considered by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee on 15th October,
1985, which was of the opinion that, since the respondent had completed 3 F
years ofregular service as Store keeper commencing from 6th June, 1977, only
on 7th June, 1980, he could not be promoted as Store Keeper earlier than 1980.
With regard to his promotion to the post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I, the
Departmental Promotion Committee was of the view that since under the
Recruitment Rules, the respondent had completed 3 years of regular service
as Senior Store Keeper only on 23rd August, 1983, the respondent could not G
be considered for that post as that post had, in the meantime, been taken out
of the purview of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Recruitment
and Promotion Rules with regard to that post had ceased to exist with effect
from 7th November, 1981.
On the basis oftlie decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, H.
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] I S.C.R:

A the order dated 30th October, 1985 was passed by the appellants, which was
challenged' by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, which by its judgment dated 23rd February, 1988, has allowed
the claim petition and issued the following directions:-

"(a) The applicant's service as Store Keeper at Pune at least from
B 1.5.1974 when he was made a permanent Store Keeper should be
reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of eligibility for
promotion as Senior Store Keeper at NPOL, Cochin.

(b) The Review DPC should consider the applicant for ad-hoc or
regular promotion as the case may be against ad-hoc/regular vacancies
C between 31.1. 78 and 22.8.80.

(c) On the basis of the recommendations of the Review DPC III, if
any, the applicant should be promoted as SSK either on ad-hoc or on
regular basis by ante-dating his promotion from 22.8.80.

(d) The respondents should identify the un-filled posts of SSK-1 from
D
1982 to date and consider the applicant for promotion as SSK-1 with
effect from the date he can be deemed to have put in three years of
regular service as SSK either from 22.8.80 or on earlier date with effect
from which the Review DPC recommends his name for regular promotion
as per promotion as per (b) above."
E
From the facts set out above, it will be seen that promotion was denied
to the respondent on the post of Senior Store Keeper on the ground that he
had completed 3 years of regular service as Store keeper on 7th June, I 980
and, therefore, he could not be promoted earlier than 1980. In coming to this
conclusion, the appellants excluded the period of service rendered by the
F respondent in the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune, as a Store Keeper for the
period from 27th April, 1971to6th June, 1977. The appellants contended that, .i.,._
since the respondent had been transferred on compassionate ground, on his
own request to the post of Store Keeper at Cochin and was placed at the
bottom of the Seniority list, the period of 3 years of regular service can be
G treated to commence only from the date on which he was transferred to
Cochin. this is obviously fallacious inasµmch as the respondent had already
acquired Jhe status of a permanent empi~yee at Pune where he had rendered
more than 3 years of service as a Store Keeper. Even if an employee is r
transferred at his own request, from one place to another, on the same post,
the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a
H permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from
SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI 1•. V.M. JOSEPH [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 181

consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may A
have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place,
Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two
different and distinct factors .
-.... This Court in Union ofIndia & Ors. v. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR ( 1996) SC
764= [1996] 1 sec 524, has held that, where an employee is transferred from B
one unit to another on compassionate ground and is placed at the bottom of
the seniority list, the service rendered by him at the earlier place from where
he has been transferred, being r.!gular service, has to be counted towards
experience ancl eligibility for promotion.

In view of this decision, with which we respectfully agree, the direction C
of the Tribunal that the respondent may be promoted to the post of Senior
Store Keeper from an earlier date and the further direction concerning
respondent's promotion to the post of Senior Store Keeper, Grade-I, do not
suffer from any infirmity. That being so, the appeal has no merits and is
accordingly dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. D
/,
B.K.S. Appeal dismissed.

',