1. Dispute over whether past service under a redeployment scheme counts toward the regular service requirement for promotion to Upper Division Clerk under statutory recruitment rules. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 489
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : S.Saghir Ahmad
Union Of India
Versus
G.R.K.Sharma
Case No. : 3133 of 1993, 2131 of 1998
Date of Decision : 4/16/98
Important Points
Past service rendered by a redeployed employee in a previous organization cannot be counted as "regular service in the grade" for determining eligibility for promotion or seniority in the new organization.
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Seniority
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Recruitment Rules - Promotion - Eligibility - "Regular service of eight years in the grade" - Interpretation - Whether past service rendered by an employee under a redeployment scheme in a previous organization can be counted for the purpose of experience for promotion to a higher post in the new organization - The expression "regular service of eight years in the grade" connotes rendering service in the organization to which the employee has been appointed - Past service of a redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for seniority or experience as it does not constitute service in the grade of the new organization. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis under a redeployment scheme, with the condition that he would occupy the juniormost position in the cadre. For promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk, the statutory recruitment rules required eight years of regular service in the grade. The employee, having not completed eight years in the current organization, contended that his past experience in the previous organization should be counted toward this eligibility requirement. The tribunal accepted this contention and directed the government to consider the employee for promotion.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal committed a serious error in counting the past service of the respondent. It held that a redeployed employee must render the required period of service specifically within the organization to which they were appointed to be eligible for promotion.
Issues: Whether past service rendered under a redeployment scheme counts towards the requirement of "regular service in the grade" for promotion eligibility in a new organization.
Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "regular service in the grade" refers to service rendered within the organization to which the employee has been appointed. Past service in a different organization under a redeployment scheme does not count as service in the grade for the purpose of promotion or seniority in the new organization.
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the tribunal set aside.
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis under a redeployment scheme, with the condition that he would occupy the juniormost position in the cadre. For promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk, the statutory recruitment rules required eight years of regular service in the grade. The employee, having not completed eight years in the current organization, contended that his past experience in the previous organization should be counted toward this eligibility requirement. The tribunal accepted this contention and directed the government to consider the employee for promotion.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the tribunal committed a serious error in counting the past service of the respondent. It held that a redeployed employee must render the required period of service specifically within the organization to which they were appointed to be eligible for promotion.
Issues: Whether past service rendered under a redeployment scheme counts towards the requirement of "regular service in the grade" for promotion eligibility in a new organization.
Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "regular service in the grade" refers to service rendered within the organization to which the employee has been appointed. Past service in a different organization under a redeployment scheme does not count as service in the grade for the purpose of promotion or seniority in the new organization.
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the tribunal set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Union contends past service is ineligible for promotion credit; respondent argues that absence of an explicit embargo allows counting experience from a previous organization. (Para 2 )
3. The court found that regular service in the grade refers to service rendered within the organization to which the employee was appointed. (Para 2 )
4. Past service of a redeployed employee in a previous organization does not constitute service in the grade for promotion eligibility. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed; the tribunal's order is set aside and the original application is dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Does past service rendered by a redeployed employee in a previous organization count toward the requirement of regular service in the grade for promotion?
No. The court held that regular service in the grade connotes rendering service in the organization to which the employee has been appointed, and past service of a redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted. (Para 2 )
7. How is the expression regular service in the grade interpreted in the context of redeployed employees?
It is interpreted as the period of service rendered by the employee within the specific organization to which they were redeployed, excluding any prior service in other organizations. (Para 2 )
8. Can the past service of a redeployed surplus employee be counted for seniority in a new organization?
No, the court held that the past service of a redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for seniority in the new organization. (Para 2 )
(1) THE order of the central Administrative tribunal dated 28/7/1992 in OA No. 247 of 1991 is being assailed in this appeal by the Union of India. The question for consideration is whether the past service rendered by an employee under the redeployment scheme can at all be counted for the purpose of his experience for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed on the basis of the redeployment scheme by order dated 6/3/1986 as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis in the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad and it was clearly indicated in the appointment order that he will take the juniormost position in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk of the Press. In 1990, certain posts of Upper Division Clerk fell vacant. The promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk from Lower Division is governed by a statutory rule framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, called the Security Printing Press Recruitment Rules, 1985 . Under the said Rule, for being eligible for consideration for promotion, the requirement is Lower Division Clerk with regular service of eight years in the grade. Admittedly, the respondent had not served for eight years as a Lower Division Clerk in the organisation in which he was brought by way of redeployment. But he filed the application before the tribunal contending inter alia that the appointment order merely indicates that he will obtain the juniormost position in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk and that does not wipe off the past experience which he had acquired in the earlier organisation and therefore that should be taken into account as experience as required under the recruitment rules for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The tribunal in the impugned judgment having accepted the said contention and having directed the Union of India to consider the respondent for being promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, this appeal has been preferred.
(2) MR V.C. Mahajan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union Clerk, the tribunal committed error in taking into account the past service rendered by the respondent and directing the Union government to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the Upper Division Clerk. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that in the absence of any embargo in the appointment order or in any other provision, the past experience was required to be counted for the purpose of deciding the eligibility for promotion of the respondent to Upper Division Clerk and consequently the tribunal has not committed any error. Having considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant recruitment rules governing the question of promotion, we are of the considered opinion that a redeployed employee who has been posted in the Printing Press must render eight years of service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Printing Press so as to be eligible for being considered for promotion to Upper Division Clerk. The expression "regular service of eight years in the grade" would connote rendering eight years of service in the organisation to which he has been appointed. In a somewhat similar situation, this court has considered similar expression in the case of Union of India v. K. Savitri where it has been held that the past service of redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for his seniority in the new organisation and equally, the past experience also would not count as the so-called past service rendered will not be service in the grade. The aforesaid decision interpreting the similar expression "service in the grade" would equally apply in the present case where the statutory rule also uses the expression "regular service of eight years in the grade".
(3) IN this view of the matter, the tribunal committed serious error in counting of past service of the respondent and directing the
