http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: JOYACHAN M. SEBASTIAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DIRECTUR GENERAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.      The only  question for  consideration  is:  Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum  that he  would not  claim his  seniority held in Salem w.e.f. August 19, 1984.      Shri E.M.S.  Anam, learned  counsel for  the  appellant contended that since the transfer had come to be made due to administrative exigencies,  viz., abolition  of the post and creation of  the post  and availability  of the  vacancy  in Tamil Nadu,  the transfer  was not on account of the request made by the appellant and that, therefore, the seniority had to be  reckoned from  the date  of his  initial appointment, i.e.,  September   21,  1983.   We  find  no  force  in  the contention.      It is  now settled  legal position that on abolition of the post, the holder of the post has no right to continue on the  post.  Instead  of  retrenching  him  as  surplus,  the Government have  accommodated him  in the  available vacancy and, therefore,  it must be deemed to be a fresh appointment for the  purposes of  seniority. After  joining in  Salem in Tamil Nadu, he made a request for transfer to Trivandrum and it is  at his request that he was transferred. Consequently, on his  undertaking in  the application  that he  would  not claim his  seniority at  Salem  Station,  the  transfer  was effected at  his request.  It is settled legal position that he  would  take  his  seniority  as  junior-most  among  the confirmed employees in the transferee-region.      Considered from  this perspective,  we are  of the view that the  Tribunal  has  not  committed  any  error  of  law warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.