http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C.N. PONNAPPAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  764            1996 SCC  (1) 524  JT 1995 (9)   175        1995 SCALE  (7)116

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:              [WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1989              and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2320 OF 1995]                          O R D E R      These  three   appeals  raise  a  common  question  for consideration. The  question is  whether an  employee who is transferred from one unit to other on compassionate grounds, and, as  a result,  is placed at the bottom of the seniority list can  have his service in the earlier unit from where he has been  transferred counted  as experience for the purpose of promotion  in the unit where he is transferred. There was a difference  of opinion  amongst the Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal  (hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the Tribunal’) on  this question.  In C.N. Poonappan V. Union of India &  Ors. (Transfer Application No. 770 of 1986) decided on June  20, 1986,  which has given rise to Civil Appeal No. 1221 of 1987, the Madras Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that  though on  transfer on  compassionate grounds the employee loses  his seniority and is placed at the bottom of the seniority  list at  the transferred  place but  for  the purpose promotion his earlier service in the unit from where he was transferred is not wiped out and the said service has to  be   treated  as  experience  for  the  purpose  of  his eligibility for  such promotion  and if he is found eligible then the  matter of  promotion has  to be  considered on the basis of  seniority at  the transferred  place. The Banglore Bench of the Tribunal in S. Abdul Khayaum & Ors. V. Union of India (Applications  nos.  1282,  1283  and  1284  of  2986) decided on September  30, 1986 has, however, not agreed with the said  view of  the  Madras  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in Poonappan’s case  (supra) and  has held that an employee who is transferred on compassionate grounds and is placed at the bottom of  the seniority  list at  the  place  where  he  is transferred cannot  have his  earlier service  at the  place from where  he was transferred counted as experience for the purpose of  eligibility for  promotion. Since  the  Banglore

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Bench and  the Madras  Bench were co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, it  was expected  that the Banglore Bench, when it of a  Lower Division  Clerk to  the post  of Upper  Division Clerk, which  is in issue in Civil Appeals Nos. 1221 of 1987 and 2320  of 1995,  the relevant rules required "eight years regular service in the grade." Similarly, for promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade III to Stenographer Grade II, which is  in issue  in Civil  Appeal No.  529 of 1989, "five years of  regular service  in the post of Stenographer Grade III" was required.      The service  rendered by  an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where  he is  transferred. Both  the periods are taken into account  for the purpose of leave and retrial benefits. The fact  that as  a result  of transfer he is placed at the bottom of  the seniority  list at the place of transfer does not wipe  out his  service at  the place  from where  he was transferred. The  said service, being regular service in the grade,  has  to  be  taken  into  account  as  part  of  his experience for  the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot  be ignored  only on  the ground  that it  was not rendered at  the place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the  place from  where the  employee has been transferred has  to   be  counted  as  experience  for  the  purpose  of eligibility for  promotion at  the place  where he  has been transferred. felt inclined  to take  a view  different from that taken by the Madras  Bench, should  have referred  the  question  for consideration by  a larger  Bench. Any  way, the  matter has been  considered   by  a  Full  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in Transferred Application  No. 65  of 1987  wherein  the  Full Bench has  agreed with  the view  of  the  Madras  Bench  in Poonappan’s case  (supra) and  has held that a person who is transferred  on   compassionate  grounds   only  loses   his seniority but  he does  not lose  the benefit  of  the  past service  in  the  previous  unit  for  the  purpose  of  his promotion.      Civil Appeal  No. 1221  of 1987  has been filed against the  Madras  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  in  Poonappan’s  case (supra). Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989 has been filed against the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated March 15, 1988  in Civil  Appeal No.  118  of  1987  filed  by  N. Kumarason. Civil  Appeal No.  2320 of  1995 has  been  filed against the  judgment of  the Madras  Bench of  the Tribunal dated October  5, 1987  in Transferred Application No. 65 of 1987 filed  by K.A. Balasubramaniam. Civil Appeals Nos. 1221 of 1987  and 2320  of 1995 relate to promotion from the post of Lower  Division Clerk  to Upper  Division Clerk and Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989 relates to promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade III to Stenographer Grade II.      We  have   considered  the  appeals  in  the  light  of provisions contained in the relevant rules. For promotion.      It has been pointed out that subsequent to the judgment of the  Tribunal in  Poonappan’s case  (supra), the relevant rules governing promotion from Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk  have been amended by notification dated June 30, 1986  and now  the  requirement  is  "with  eight  years regular     service      in     the     grade     in     the unit/office/establishment/laboratory/centre/unit,  etc.   in which they are considered for promotion."      Since we are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal on the  interpretation of  the rules  as they  stood at  the relevant  time,   the  appeals   fail  and  are  accordingly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

dismissed. No costs.