Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules in inter-collectorate transfers: Union of India vs. Deo Narain (2008)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 15, 2008

Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

When an employee is transferred from one department to another on compassionate grounds, does that employee lose their previously earned seniority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Union of India and several Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) who had been transferred between collectorates. The core issue revolved around whether these transferred employees could count their past service for seniority when seeking promotion to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) positions. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.

Case Background

The case originated from an action by the Central Excise and Customs Department, which did not consider several Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). These LDCs had initially joined the Office of Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, and later transferred to the Meerut Collectorate.

Specifically:

• Applicant No. 1, Deo Narain, joined as LDC on June 11, 1982.
• Applicant No. 2, Bijender Singh, joined on September 9, 1986.
• Applicant No. 3, Nandan Singh, joined on May 5, 1988.
• Applicant No. 4, Ram Kishan, joined on March 17, 1987.

Upon their transfer to the Meerut Collectorate under the Inter-Collectorate Transfers policy, they lost the seniority they had accumulated in their parent departments. Consequently, they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new department. This lower position meant they were not within the zone of consideration for promotion to UDC in the year 1997-98, leading to their cases being unconsidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The applicants initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging their non-consideration for promotion from LDC to UDC based on their placement in the seniority list. They argued that they had completed the requisite service as LDCs and should have been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The CAT, on April 13, 1999, allowed the application and directed the authorities to convene a DPC for the year 1997. The CAT ordered that the cases of the applicants be considered as eligible LDCs for promotion to the post of UDC, taking into account their past regular service as LDCs before their transfer to Commissionerate, Meerut. This action was to be completed within three months.

Aggrieved by the CAT’s order, the Union of India and other appellants approached the High Court of Delhi. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the CAT’s judgment and stating that there was no merit in the petition and that the CAT’s order was not illegal or contrary to law.

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the President of India to frame rules regulating the method of recruitment to Group C posts in the Central Excise and Land Customs Department.
• The Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979: These rules lay down the procedure for recruitment, age limit, qualifications, and relaxation criteria for various posts. Specifically, appointment to the position of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) is made, inter alia, on promotion from the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with seven years of experience.

The ‘Note’ to the Rules specifies that if a junior person is considered for promotion based on completing the prescribed qualifying period of service, all persons senior to him in the grade shall also be considered, even if they have not rendered the prescribed qualifying period but have completed the prescribed period of probation.

Additionally, the rules provide for a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the cases of eligible candidates.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court erred in allowing the applicants’ claim and directing the authorities to consider their cases for promotion to UDC.
• When the applicants were transferred to another Collectorate, they forfeited their seniority according to the Government of India’s instructions.
• The applicants were expressly informed that in the new Collectorate, they would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, which they accepted.
• There was significant delay and laches on the part of the applicants in challenging this action, as they were transferred in 1992 but only filed the Original Application in September 1998.
• Eligibility and seniority are distinct concepts; even if an employee is eligible and qualified, it does not guarantee consideration irrespective of seniority.
• The applicants retained their requisite service as experience for eligibility but were correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new Directorate.
• Since the applicants were transferees with lower positions, they did not fall within the zone of consideration for promotion.

Arguments by the Respondents (Deo Narain & Ors.):

• Once it is established that transferee LDCs would not lose their past service, they should be treated as appointed LDCs from the date they joined service.
• Ignoring their claim based on their placement at the bottom of the seniority list is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• The action is unreasonable and infringes Article 19 of the Constitution.
• The government could not exercise the power of relaxation of eligibility in favor of ineligible LDCs when the applicants were otherwise eligible and qualified.