1998 Supreme(SC) 1238

1998(9) Supreme 391
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Calcutta)
S. Saghir Ahmed and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Dwijen Chandra Sarkar & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 1988
Decided on 15-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mrs. Sheela Goel, Advocate for A.K. Goel, Advo­cate.
For the Respondents : P.N. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, H.V.P. Sharma, A.K. Sharma and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

Important Point
A transferee employee would be entitled to count his service in his parent department for the purpose of time-bound promotion in the transferee department, notwithstanding condition in transfer order that he would not be entitled to count his service in his parent department for the purpose of seniority in transferee department.

Headnote:Service Law-Time-bound Promotion-P & T Department-Cir­cular dated 17.12.1983-Scheme for time-bound promotion provides that C group and D group employees who completed 16 years ser­vice entitled to promo­tion-Appel­lants transferred from Rehabilitation Department to P & T Department-Condition that their service will not be taken into ac­count for fixing seniority-Appellant’s claim for counting their service in Rehabilitation Department for time-bound promotion - Rejec­tion-Not justified - Appellants entitled to time-bound promotion by combining their services in Rehabilitation Department-Granting higher grade under scheme for time-bound promotion does not offend conditions imposed in transfer order.

       Held : The transfer of the appellants from the Rehabilitation Department to the P & T Department was not on their request but was expressly stated to be in the public interest. But while doing so, it was clarified that their past service in the Reha­bilitation Department would not count for ‘seniority’. The purpose of this restriction was that their transfer should not disturb the chances of promotion of those who were already working in the P & T Department. There is no doubt, that for the purpose of their regular promotions to higher posts in the P & T department their seniority is to count only from the date of their transfer to the P & T department. The transfer order imposed this restriction. However, the position in regard to ‘time-bound’ promotions is different. Where there are a large number of employees in any department and where the employees are not likely to get their promo­tion in the near future because of their comparatively low-position in the seniority list, Government has found it necessary that, in order to remove frustration, the employees are to be given a higher grade in terms of emoluments-while retaining them in the same catego­ry. That is what is generally known as the time-bound promotion. Such a time-bound promotion does not affect the normal seniority of those higher up. (Paras 10 & 11)

       It that be the true purpose of a time-bound promotion which is meant relieve frustration on account of stagnation, it cannot be said that the government wanted to deprive the appellants who were brought into the P & T Department in public interest-of the benefit of a higher grade. The frustration on account of stagnation is a common factor not only of those already in the P & T depart­ment but also of those who are administratively transferred by Government from the Rehabilitation Department to the P & T Department. The Government, while imposing an eligibility condition of 16 years service in the grade for being entitled to time-bound promotion, is not intending to benefit only one section of employees in the category and deny it to another section of employees in the same category. The common factor for all these employees is that they have remained in the same grade for 16 years without promotions. The said period is a term of eligibility for obtaining a financial benefit of a higher grade. (Para 12)

       The words “except seniority” in the 1983 circular, in our view means that such a benefit of a higher grade given to the transferees will in no way affect the seniority of employees in the P & T Depart­ment when the turn of the P & T employees comes up for promotion to a higher category or post. The said words `except seniority’ are intend­ed to see that the said persons who have come from another department on transfer do not upset the seniority in the transferee department. Granting them higher grade under the scheme for time-bound promotion does not therefore offend the condition imposed in the transfer order. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants are entitled to the higher grade from the date on which they have completed 16 years and the said period is to be computed on the basis of their total service both in the Rehabilitation Department and the P & T Department. (Para 14)

       When the transfer is in public interest, and not on request, the two employees transferred, cannot be in a worse position than those in the above rulings who have been transferred on request and who, in those cases accepted that their names could appear at the bottom of seniority list. Even in case relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as seen above, that the past service will count for eligibility for certain purposes though it may not count for seniority. Hence the transfer order and concerned circular of 1983 which required that the past service should not count for seniority, cannot have any bearing on eligibility for time bound promotion. Seniority and time bound promotions are different concepts, as stated above. (Paras 18 & 19)

       Held consequently : The past service of the appellants is to be counted for the limited purpose of eligibility-for computing the number of years of qualifying service, to enable them to claim the higher grade under the scheme of time-bound promotions. The appellants will be entitled to the higher grade from the date they completed 16 years of service-computing the same by taking into account their past service in the Rehabilitation Department also along with the service in the P & T Department. (Paras 20 & 21)