Employees Voluntarily Transferred Between Divisions Acquire Seniority Only From Their Reporting Date.

Shivaswamy, a KSRTC conductor, sought and obtained a voluntary transfer from the Mysuru Urban Division to the Mysuru Rural Division on 1 September 2001.

In December 2018, he sought restoration of his original seniority, relying on the treatment of another conductor, Mahadeva.

KSRTC rejected his representation, stating that an employee transferred on request receives seniority in the new division from the date of reporting there under Regulation 13(4)(iii) of the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982.

Shivaswamy challenged the rejection in W.P. No. 3040/2020.

The Writ Court allowed the petition in part and directed KSRTC to grant him benefits, including seniority, by treating the transfer as one on administrative grounds.

KSRTC appealed.

The connected contempt petition alleged non-compliance with the Writ Court’s order.

1. Whether Shivaswamy’s claim to restoration of seniority, raised approximately 17 years after his voluntary transfer, was too belated to be entertained.

2. Whether an employee transferred to another division on request is entitled to retain seniority from the original division, or receives seniority in the new division from the date of reporting there.

Regulation 13(4)(iii) of the KSRTC Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1982 distinguishes between transfers on administrative grounds and transfers on an employee’s request.

For an administrative transfer, the employee’s entire service in the former division counts for seniority in the receiving division; for a transfer on request, seniority in the post held on transfer begins from the date the employee reports to the receiving division.

The Court also held that a claim to seniority raised after a long and unexplained delay should not be entertained.

The Court found that Shivaswamy’s transfer was made on his own request.

Regulation 13(4)(iii) therefore entitled him to seniority in the Mysuru Rural Division only from the date he reported there, not to his original seniority.

The Writ Court’s direction to treat the transfer as administrative was consequently inconsistent with the applicable regulation.

The Court also found that Shivaswamy had not challenged his seniority after the 2001 transfer and first sought relief in 2018, after a delay of 17 years; that belated claim could not have been entertained.

It held that Shivaswamy was not entitled to restoration of his original seniority following his voluntary transfer and that his delayed claim should not have been entertained.

In light of the appellate decision, the connected contempt petition was dismissed as no longer surviving.