Past regular service counts toward promotion eligibility despite bottom seniority after inter-charge transfer.

The applicant was appointed as Stenographer Grade-II in the Karnataka and Goa Region on 23 July 2012 and was subsequently promoted as Stenographer Grade-I on 31 March 2017.

Pursuant to an inter-charge transfer on compassionate grounds, he was relieved from the Karnataka and Goa Region on 31 March 2017 and joined the Odisha Region on 3 April 2017, with bottom seniority and pay protection.

The transfer was governed by the CBDT’s instructions dated 14 May 1990, under which past service in the old charge would not count for seniority in the new charge.

The respondents treated this condition, together with the applicant’s undertaking, as excluding his past service for determining eligibility for promotion to Income Tax Inspector.

The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pratibha Rani v. Union of India, arising from Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan, contending that past regular service could not be disregarded for promotional eligibility merely because he had been transferred to another region.

His representations were rejected by order dated 14 October 2022, which he challenged before the Tribunal.

Whether regular service rendered by the applicant in the Karnataka and Goa Region before his inter-charge transfer to Odisha could be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion to Income Tax Inspector.

Whether the applicant’s undertaking to accept bottom seniority and the CBDT’s transfer instructions barred recognition of his past service for promotional eligibility.

Whether the respondents were required to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee and reconsider the applicant’s promotion with reference to the combined qualifying service.

The Tribunal applied the CBDT’s instruction dated 14 May 1990, which provides that service rendered in the old charge will not count for seniority and that the transferee will be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new charge.

It distinguished seniority from eligibility for promotion and relied on the CBDT clarification dated 27 October 2011, which expressly preserves a transferred employee’s eligibility of the parent Commissionerate for promotion to the next higher grade.

The Tribunal followed Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan, (1996) 1 SCC 524, holding that regular service rendered before compassionate transfer remains valid experience for promotional eligibility and is not extinguished by bottom seniority.

It also relied on M.M. Thomas v. Union of India, (2017) 13 SCC 722, which recognised that the qualifying-service requirement may be satisfied by aggregating service rendered in different regions.

It also relied on Pratibha Rani v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019, decided on 10 April 2019, which directly held that pre-transfer service must be counted for eligibility for promotion.

The Tribunal held that the 14 May 1990 instruction affected only the applicant’s seniority in the Odisha Region; it did not state that regular service rendered in the previous region would be excluded from the minimum service required for promotion.

The applicant’s placement at the bottom of the seniority list protected the promotional interests of existing employees in Odisha, but did not erase his earlier regular service or experience in the same cadre.

The Tribunal further found that the respondents had identified no statutory rule or valid administrative instruction excluding such service from promotional eligibility.

The undertaking executed by the applicant could not override the Recruitment Rules or the governing legal principle that regular service is relevant for determining eligibility.

Following Pratibha Rani and C.N. Ponnappan, the Tribunal concluded that service in the previous region and service in the transferred region had to be considered cumulatively for the limited purpose of eligibility, while seniority would continue to operate independently.

The respondents were directed to convene a review DPC and reconsider the applicant’s case on that basis.

His seniors in the Odisha Region were also to be considered in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

If found eligible, the applicant was to receive promotion on a notional basis from the appropriate date until the date on which he actually assumed charge of the promotional post.

The OA was allowed to that extent, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.