IMPORTANT POINT
Past services in Khadi Board have to be reckoned while computing length of service in Govt. Department for fixation of security subject to equities to be adjusted as directed by Supreme Court in this judgment.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-On the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board [for short the Board ] under the Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ], the Khadi Department and Village Industries wing of the Department of the Industries and Commerce stood abolished and those working either in the Khadi Department or the Village Industries wing were absorbed in the services of the Board giving an option to such persons either to work under the Board without any lien in the Government or to accept the terminal benefits and put an end to the service. The Government by order made on 26.12.1961 requested the Board to absorb the Extension Officers and Spinning Organisers and to allot them to the offices of the District Khadi Offices, Central Khadi Offices, Central Khadi & Regional Godowns and so on. Action was taken on the same. A letter was issued on 8.9.1972 by the Government stating that the services rendered by Extension Officers (Khadi) prior to their appointment as Upper Division. Clerks, Upper Division Accounts cannot be counted for the purpose of their services for regular appointment to higher grade.

2. The High Court allowed W.P. No. 1477 of 1980 filed by one Perumal Swami and directed to reckon his service under the Board as Extension/Officer (Khadi) while computing the length of service as Extension Officer (Education) in the Department of Education. This order of the learned Single Judge was given effect to by the Board. On the basis of this judgment, one C. Subbayan represented that his service under the Government as Extension Officer (Khadi) should be reckoned while fitting him in the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks in the Board, though the Board had decided to the contrary in Board Proceedings No. 343 dated 12.6.1964.

3. In the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in WP No. 1477/80, the matter was examined by the Government and directed to refix the seniority of the said Subbayan in the category of UDCs with effect from the date of his appointment as Extension Officers (Khadi) under the Board. The Board refixed the seniority of Subbayan by an order made on 20.11.1985 and the Chief Executive Officer of the Board also passed orders in other similar cases. Writ petitions were filed by R. Sivasubramaniam and S. Kulandhaivelu challenging the said orders on the ground that they were senior to the said Subbayan and certain others who had also been given the benefit of the judgment in Perumal Swami s case. The learned Single Judge quashed the said orders. Against that order, writ appeals were preferred. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeals. In doing so, the High Court took note of the decision in Perumal Swami s case to the following effect:

"This Government order also indicates that wherever absorption of staff of one department in another department is due to administrative reasons, their seniority is to be fixed not with reference to the date of their absorption in the new department but with reference to the original appointment. The Government orders referred to above clearly show that the Government has always been anxious to protect the interests of those persons who were originally recruited by one department but were absorbed in another department for administrative reasons by providing for fixation of their seniority in the transferee department, taking into account their original date of appointment and not the date of their absorption in the transferee department. There cannot be any doubt that the stand taken by the Government in those Government orders is just and reasonable for, if a person is appointed to Government service and for administrative reasons he is transferred from one department to another, his seniority and chances of promotion should not stand affected by the transfer which is not his own making."

4. On the ratio of the judgment in Perumal Swami s case, the High Court held that