Acceptance of transfer conditions that require forfeiture of seniority precludes subsequent claims for seniority, and delay in raising such claims can render them stale.

ORDER :

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to challenge the order passed to call for the records of the first respondent in Proc.No.H3/15216/2014 dated 27.04.2015 and quash the same as illegal in so far as the Paragraph 4 (i) and 4 (ii) is concerned and consequential order passed by the second respondent in Proc.No.A8/5585/2018 dated 04.01.2019 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to fix petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant by considering his service rendered in the cadre of Assistant with effect from 02.01.2013.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is working as Assistant in the Office of State Tax Office – I, Kovilpatti, Tirunelveli State Taxes Division, Tirunelveli. He is a direct recruitee to the post of Assistant in the respondent Department through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and alloted to Vellore Commercial Taxes Division.

2 (i) . While the petitioner was in service of the Vellore Commercial Taxes Division, he left his family at Tirunelveli and hence, he was unable to take care of his family. Hence, he made a representation before the first respondent to transfer him to Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division. But his request for transfer to another Division in the same Department Unit was considered by the first respondent after a delay of merely one (1) year, he was transferred from Vellore Commercial Taxes Division to Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division with a condition to forego his seniority and not to file any case regarding fixation of seniority.

2(ii). While passing the impugned order, the first respondent had referred to Rule 20 (a) (iii) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules , and the same is not applicable to the petitioner. Since it will only apply to the case regarding transfer of a member working under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules from one Department Unit to another Department Unit. But the petitioner requested the first respondent to transfer him from Vellore Division to Tirunelveli Division of the same Commercial Taxes Department.

3. The second respondent has fixed the petitioner's seniority only in the year 2018 by way of inter-se seniority list of Assistants working in the Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division, wherein the petitioner was placed at seniority No.135, among the Assitants working in the Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division. The petitioner made an objection dated 31.07.2018 before the second respondent to fix his seniority in the cadre of Assistants reference to official date of appointment as Assistant. However, his objection was rejected by the second respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the order impugned, the first respondent had referred to Rule 20 (a) (iii) of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and the same is not applicable to the petitioner since it will apply only to the case regarding transfer of a member of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service from one departmental unit to an office in another departmental unit. But the petitioner requested the first respondent to transfer him from Vellore to Tirunelveli of the Commercial Taxes Department and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim his seniority from the date of his original appointment as Assistant.

5. Per-contra Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner was transferred from Vellore Commercial Taxes Division to Tirunelveli Commercial Taxes Division with a condition to forego his seniority and not to file any case, regarding fixation of his seniority. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 29.04.2014, in The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cheapuk, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005. and Ors Vs. D.Murugesan and Anr. in [W.A.(MD).Nos.4, 22 & 615 of 2020] and submitted th