A respondent entitled to seniority under Special Rules cannot be denied benefits post inter-departmental transfer per applicable precedents.

1. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Respondent was appointed as Peon in the Panchayat Department on 12/11/1999, based on the advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission. His probation was declared in that Department. He, thereafter, sought an inter - departmental transfer to Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. That request was considered and allowed on 06/11/2001. He, thus, came to the Education Department in the Government Secretariat. He, thereafter, claimed that since he was an approved probationer in the Panchayat Department before his inter - departmental transfer, he was eligible to be reckoned having entered in the Education Department of the Government Secretariat as immediately junior to the then junior - most approved probationer among the Last Grade Servants in hat Department. This plea made by him was being pushed through different representations and as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, , the gradation list got formulated initially placing him at a particular position which ultimately trickled down to Sl. No. 201. He made further representation to the Government seeking that he is entitled to the relief that he is seeking on the basis of R.17(d) of the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Servants. Those rules were issued as per GO (P) No. 82 of 1966 / P. D. dated 08/03/1966 and was published in the Gazette dated 05/04/1966. The Government rejected that request. He challenged it before the Tribunal.

3. The learned Tribunal found that on the basis of R.3 of the aforesaid Special Rules, as it stood at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of R.17(d) of those Rules in relation to fixation of seniority on the basis of R.14 of those Rules. The Tribunal relied on the Bench decision of this Court in Sanim Shah v. State of Kerala , 2007 (4) KHC 643 : 2007 (4) KLT 898 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 482

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the afore - noted decision in Sanim Shah (supra) does not apply and what governs is the law stated in Ramachandran v. Madhu , 2012 (2) KHC 51 : 2012 (2) KLT 283 (FB) : ILR 2012 (2) Ker. 121 : 2012 (2) KLJ 624 . That related to District - wise appointments and transfers from among Excise Guards and other categories, which did not belong to the Last Grade Servants category. What fell for pointed consideration of the Tribunal was the case of Last Grade Servants governed by a separate set of Special Rules formulated under the authority of the Kerala Public Services Act under Art.309 of the Constitution. Therefore, even GO (P) No. 4 of 1961 which was an executive decision regarding inter - departmental transfer would not be of any guidance on the face of the clear provisions contained in the aforesaid Special Rules.

5. For the reasons afore - stated, we are in complete agreement with the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal. We find no justification to interfere with the decision, in exercise of authority under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.