STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusUTTAM VISHNU PAWAR

                                      [2008) 1 S.C.R. 817


      i                    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                             A
                                           v.
                                UTTAM VISHNU PAWAR
                                (C.A. No. 1021 of 2002)

                                     JANUARY 17, 2008
                                                                                   B
                           (A.K. MATHUR AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.)
I"
      ..             Service Law:
                     Time bound promotion - Government of Maharashtra
                Resolution dated 8. 6. 1995 - Providing 12 years period for time   c
                bound promotion - Claim of incumbent to count service
                rendered by him in previous department - HELD: Rightly
                allowed by Tribunal as also the High Court.
                      Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and
                                                                              D
                Ors. [1999) 2 sec 119; Raksha Mantri VS. II. M. Joseph [1998)
                5 SCC 383; A.P State Electricity Board vs. R. Parthasarathi
     -""'       [1998) 9· SCC 425; Union of India vs. 11.N. Bhat [2004) AIR
                sew 1399 - relied on.
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.               E
                1021 of 2002.
                     From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2000 of
                the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 5494/2000.
                                             WITH
      ~     t                                                                      F
                    C.A. Nos. 515 and 518 of 2008 al)d 2917 and 3083 of
                2006.
                      Asha G. Nair, Mukesh K. Giri (N.P.) andAniruddha P. Mayee
                for the Appellants.
                                                                                   G
                     Sushi! Karanjkar, Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, V.D.
                Bhavsar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar and
                Vishwajit Singh for the Respondent.
                     The following order of the Court was delivered :
                                              817                                  H
    818       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A                               ORDER
          1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
          2. Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 20630/2006.
          3. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
B        4. All these appeals involve similar question of law
    therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of
    by a common order.
       5. The facts given in C.A. No. 1021/2002 (State of
C Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Uttam Vishnu Pawar) are taken into
  consideration for disposal of these appeals.
        6. The respondent-Uttam Vishnu Pawar filed Original'
  Application No. 930/1999 before the Maharashtra
  Administrative Tribunal Mumbai and sought a direction that his
D services which have been rendered by him in the earlier
  department may be counted for computing the period of 12 years
  service for Time Bound Promotion as per Government
  Resolution dated 8.6.1995. The Tribunal vide its order dated
  14th March, 2000 allowed the claim of the respondent and held
E that the services rendered by the incumbent in the previous
  department shall be counted in computing the period of 12 years
  forTime Bound Promotion Scheme. Aggrieved against the order
  passed by the Tribunal, the State of Maharashtra-appellant herein
  filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench
  of the High Court of Bombay after hearing both the parties
F affirmed the order of the Tribunal dated 14.3.2000.
        7. The respondent herein was working as a Telephone
  Operator in Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra.
  Thereafter he made a request for his transfer from Mumbai Zone
  to Kolhapur Zone. The request of the respondent was acceded
G to and he was transferred on his own request from Mumbai Zone       t-
  to Kolhapur Zone and he lost his seniority in Mumbai Zone and
  he joined in Kolhapur Zone on 14.6.1990 as a Junior Clerk at
  zero seniority. Thereafter, the State Government passed a
  Resolution dated 8.6.1995 giving a Time Bound Promotion to
H the persons who are stagnated in the Group C and D cadres
                     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v.                      819
                           UTIAM VISHNU PAWAR

    i-   I
             for a long period. As per the said Resolution those persons who A
             have put in 12 years of service and who fulfill other conditions
             laid down in the said Resolution were eligible for the next higher
             scale of pay. We are not concerned with the other conditions
             laid down in the Resolution dated 8.6.1995. We are only
             concerned with the limited question that whether the respondent B
             is entitled to count his service rendered in the Mumbai Zone
~
             when he was transferred to Kolhapur Zone for purposes of
             computing 12 years of service so as to enable him to get the
    -+
             benefit of this Resolution. The Tribunal granted the benefit of
             past service to the respondent and the same was affirmed by
             the Division Bench of the High Court.
                                                                                c
                   8. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted
             that since the incumbent was at zero seniority in the Kolhapur
             Zone therefore his services rendered in the Mumbai Zone cannot
             be counted for computing the period of 12 years so as to give D
             him the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme as per
-~           Resolution dated 8.6.1995.
                                                         -
                   9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent
             submitted that the incumbent has already lost his seniority and
             as per the transfer order he has been placed at the zero seniority E
             level but it does not mean that he will lose the service put in by
             him in the Mumbai Zone. Learned counsel for the respondent
             has invited our attention to a series of cases of this Court where
             a view has been taken that if an incumbent is transferred to
             another zone either by way of public interest or on his own F
    .A-
             request in either situation the incumbent will get the benefit of
             past service without getting any benefit of seniority. In this
             connection our attention was invited to the case of Dwijen
             Chandra Sarkar and Another Vs. Union of India And Others
             (1999) 2 SCC 119. In that case the incumbent was transferred
             from Rehabilitation Department to P & T Department in public G
             interest at zero level seniority in the P & T Department but his
             past services were counted for giving him the benefit of the
             Scheme on completion of 16 years of service. In the said case
             the Court relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case
             of Renu Mullick Vs. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 373 wherein in H
    820       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008) 1S.C.R.


A identical situation the transferee was not permitted to count her      -t
   service rendered in former Collectorate for the purpose of
   seniority in the new charge but she was permitted to count the
   service rendered by her in earlier Collectorate for other
   purposes except seniority. Similarly, in the case of Scientific
B Advisor to Raksha Mantri Vs. V.M. Joseph (1998) 5 SCC 305
   it was held by this Court that the service rendered in another
   department which helps for determination of eligibility for                   •
   promotion will be counted but not for seniority. Again, in the case     t
   of A.P State Electricity Board Vs. R. Parthasarathi (1998) 9
c sec      425, the government servant was transferred and
   absorbed in the Electricity Board. It was held that the services
   rendered in the previous department could be counted towards
   requisite experience of 10 years for eligibility for promotion. Our
   attention was also invited to the case of Union of India Vs. V.N.
   Bhat2004AIR SCW 1399. In that case-also in identical situation
D the incumbent was transferred from one department to another.
   He lost his seniority in the new department but his service was        )--
   counted for purposes of promotion. Therefore, in view of the
   consistent approach of this court, it is. no more res integra that
  .the incumbent on transfer to the new department may not get
E the seniority but his experience of the past service rendered
   will be counted for the purpose of other benefits like promotion
   or for the higher payscale as per the Scheme of the government.
        10. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the
  view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Division Bench
F of the High Court is correct and there is no ground to interfere       -.+ •
  with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
          C.A. No. 515/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) 12097/2006)
G         C.A. No. 3083/2006, C.A. No. 2917/2006 and
          C.A. No. 518/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) 20630/2006)
         11. For the reasons stated herein above, these appeals
    are also dismissed. No order as to costs.
H R.P.                                          Appeals dismissed.