UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusV.N. BHAT

                     UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                                A
                                    v.
                               V.N. BHAT

                          OCTOBER, 16, 2003

              [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]                          B
     Service Law :

      Post and Telegraph Department- 'One Time Bound Promotion
Scheme' and 'B. C.R. Scheme '-Applicability of to employees joining the C
Department on transfer-Lower Division Clerk in Ministry of Defence-
Sought transfer to office of Chief Post Master General- 'One Time Bound
Promotion Scheme' and 'B.C.R. Scheme' introduced and benefit extended
to Postal Assistants who have rendered 16 years and 26 years of service
respectively as Postal Assistant-Respondent denied benefit on the ground D
that the Schemes were applicable only to those who rendered service of
16126 years in Postal Department-Held, even in the case where transfer
has been allowed on request, the concerned employee merely loses his
seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he
should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and E
eligibility for promotion-In terms of the Schemes, promotion is to be
granted for avoiding stagnation-The said Schemes have been framed
because they are beneficial ones and thus required to be implemented-
 The Scheme merely provided that any person having rendered 16126 years
of service without obtaining any promotion could be entitled to the
benefit-It is, therefore, not a case where promotion to the higher post is F
to be made only on the basis of seniority-Even in a case where the
promotion is to be made on the selection basis, the concerned employee,
even if he be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in terms ofthe order
of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered
for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefor.             G
     Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1999]
2 SCC 119; A.P. Seb v. R. Parthasarathi, (1998] 9 SCC 425; Scientific
Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M Joseph, (1998] 5 SCC 305 and Renu .
Mullick v. Union of India, (1994] 1 sec 373, relied on.                H
                                    857
      858                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
 A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8375 of
      1997.

           From · the Judgment and Order dated 15. 11. 96 of the Central
      Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench Circuit at Jammu in Original
 B    Application No. 401-JK of 1996.

                                         WITH

            C.A. No. 8329 of 2003.

  C         T.L.V. Iyer, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Varuna Bhandari
      Gugnani, S.N. Terdol, D.S. Mehra, C.V.S. Rao and Arvind Kumar Sharma
      for the Appellants.

            M:!-·- Bhat, Ms. Pumima Bhat for the Respondent in C.S. No. 8375/
. D 97.
            S.C. Patel (NP) for the Respondent in C.A. No. 8329/2003.

            The following Orde.r of the Court was delivered :

  E         Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 21749 of 1997.

            As identical questions of fact and law being involved in these appeals,
      we, therefore, propose to "dispose of these matters by this common order.
      However, for appreciating the controversy, we are referring the facts
  F   asserted in Civil Appeal No. 8375 of 1997.

            The respondent was previously working as a Lower Division Clerk
      in the Ministry of Defence since the year l962. He sought transfer from
      the Ministry of Defence to the office of the Chief Post Master General. The
      Directorate, by an order dated 26th April, 1982, allowed the aforesaid
 G    transfer, as a result of which the respondent joined the service in the Postal
      Department on 24th May, 1982 as Lower Division Clerk. He took the                '
                                                                                       L




      seniority at the bottom of the gradation list as per departmental rules. On
      17th December, 1983, the appellants herein introduced the time bound
      promotion scheme in the operative cadres in the Post and Telegraph
 H    Department, for·providing relief to the employees stagnating in the lower
                          U.0.1. v. V.N. BHAT                         859

 grades by improving their .promotional avenues. The Postal Department A
 decided to extend 'One Time Bound Promotion Scheme' and 'B.C.R.
 Scheme' for those employees who have rendered 16 years and 26 years
 of service as Postal Assistant respectively. These schemes were applicable
 to the administrative staff working in the Circle Office and to the office
 in which the respondent was working by converting the posts of Lower B
 Division Clerks into Postal Assistant. The respondent was given the benefit
 of the said scheme and his post was converted to that of Postal Assistant.
 Subsequently, on an enquiry from the Postal Directorate by the Department
 of Posts, a clarification was received on 8th June, 1994, wherein it was
 stated that these schemes will be operative only in regard to the officials C
 who have rendered service of 16/26 years in the Postal Department. As per
 this clarification, the benefit under the B.C:::.R. Scheme given to the
 respondent was withdrawn and he was reverted to the post earlier held by
 him. It is under such circumstances, the respondent on 15th November,
 1996, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative D
 Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Challenging his withdrawal of one time
 bound promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned
 order allowed the Application and set aside the order of withdrawal of
·one time bound promotion given to the respondent. It is against the
 said order and judgment of the Tribunal, the Union of India is in appeal
 before us.                                                                  E

      The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in short is
that having regard to the admitted fact that the respondent herein has not
completed 16/26 years in the postal service, the One Time Bound
Promotion Scheme or B.C.R. Scheme is not applicable in his case. The fact   f
that the respondent herein had completed 18 years of service in the
Ministry of Defence is not disputed. The question which, therefore, arises
for consideration is as to whether the period of service rendered by the
respondent in the Ministry of Defence should be wiped off for all purposes?
The well settled principle of law tbat even. In the case where the transfer G
has been allowed on request, the concerned employee merely loses his
seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he
should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and
eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion
is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The H
    860                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A said Schemes have been framed because they are beneficial ones and thus
    required to be implemented. The Scheme merely perused that any person
    having rendered 16/26 years of service without obtaining any promotion
    could be e.ntitled to the benefit therefor. It is, therefore, not a case where
    promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority.
B   Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on the selection basis,
    the concerned employee, even ifhe be placed at the bottom of the seniority
    list in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be
    deprived of being considered fo~ promotion to the next higher post if he
    is eligible therefor. This aspect of the matter is clearly covered by the three
C   decisions of this Court; namely, A.P. SEB v. R. Parthasarathi, [1998] 9
    SCC 425; Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M Joseph, [1998] 5
    SCC 305 and Renu Mullick v. Union of India, [1994] 1 SCC 373.

          The aforementioned decisions have been followed by this Court in
D Dwijen ChandraSarkarandAnr. v. Union oflndiaJ;mdOrs:, [1999) 2 sec
    119 in following paras :                        •e~·.: --·· -·:·~ · · --


                   "(14) The words "except seniority" in the 1983 circular, in ·
             our view, mean that such a benefit of a higher grade given to the
                                              .                             '
             transferees will in no way affect the seniority of employees in the
E            P&T Department when the tum of the P&T employees comes up
             for promotion to a higher category or post. The said words "except       ..
             seniority" are intended to see that the said persons who have come
             from another Department, on transfer do not upset the seniority
             in the transferee Department. Granting them higher grade under
F            the Scheme for Time-bound Promotion does not, therefore, offend
             the condition imposed in the transfer order. We are, therefore, of
             the view that the appellants are entitled to the higher grade from
             the date on which they have completed 16 years and the said
             period is to be computed on the basis of their total service both
G            in the Rehabilitation Department and the P&T Department.

             ( 17) On the facts of the present case and especially in view of the
             aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that when the transfer is
             in public interest and not on request, the two employees transferred
H            cannot be in a worse position than those in the above rulings who
                          U.0.1. v. V.N.BHAT                          861

        have been transferred on request and who in those cases accepted A
        that their names could appear at the bottom of the seniority list.
        Even in cases relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as
        seen above, that the past service will count for eligibility for
        certain purposes though it may not count for seniority."

      As the contention raised by the appellants herein is squarely covered
                                                                              B
by this Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar (supra), we do not find any merit ,
in these appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.

R.P.                                                   Appeal dismissed. • C