IMPORTANT POINT
Even in case where transfer has been allowed on request, concerned employee merely loses his seniority but is not deprived of other benefits including his experience and eligibility for promotion.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-One Time Bound Promotion Scheme and BCR Scheme for those employees who had rendered 16 years and 26 years of service as Postal Assistant respectively introduced by Postal Department-Respondent was covered under the scheme when working by converting the Posts of Lower Division Clerk into Postal Assistant-Respondent had joined service in Postal Department in May 1982 as LDC on transfer from Ministry of Defence where he had joined LDC in 1962, when his request for transfer was accepted-Benefit under BCR Scheme given to respondent was withdrawn on ground that he had not completed required number of years service in postal department-CAT by impugned order set aside order of withdrawal of promotion-Appeal-Whether period of service rendered by respondent in Ministry of Defence should be wiped off for all purposes? No.
Held : The well settled principle of law that even in the case where the 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 eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The 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 entitled 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. 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 of the 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. This aspect of the matter is clearly covered by the three decisions of this Court, namely, A.P. SEB vs. R. Parthasarathi - 1998 (9) SCC 425, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri vs. V.M. Joseph - 1998(5) SCC 305 and Renu Mullick vs. Union of India - 1994(1) SCC 373. (Para 4)

Judgement Key Points

Understood. I am ready to analyze the legal document you provide.

Please paste the content of the legal document below. Once provided, I will extract the Key Points and format them according to your specific requirements: 1. Each point will be clearly identified. 2. Every point will include the specific reference used in square brackets (e.g., (!) , (!) ). 3. References will be listed separately for each point and not combined.

Awaiting your input.

ORDER

Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 21749 of 1997.

2. 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 asserted in Civil Appeal No. 8375 of 1997.

3. The respondent was previously working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Defence since the year 1962. 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 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 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 Department, for providing relief to the employees stagnating in the lower grades by improving their promotional avenues. The Postal Department 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 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 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 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.

4. 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 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 that even in the case where the 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 eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The 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 entitled 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. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on the selection basis, the concern

Click Here to Read the rest of this document