Full Judgment Text
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.