Past regular service counts toward promotion eligibility despite seniority forfeiture following inter-charge transfer.

The applicants, a Tax Assistant and a Stenographer Grade-III, were appointed to the Income Tax Department through the Staff Selection Commission.

Both sought and were granted inter-charge transfers to different regions on compassionate grounds.

Upon transfer, the respondents refused to count the applicants’ regular service rendered in their previous regions for the purpose of determining eligibility for promotion to higher posts.

The applicants submitted representations on November 27, 2025, which remained undecided.

The respondents argued that per the CBDT Policy dated May 14, 1990, such transferees are placed at the bottom of the seniority list and are treated as fresh entrants for the purpose of promotion.

1. Whether the regular service rendered by an employee in a previous region prior to an inter-charge transfer on compassionate grounds is liable to be counted for determining eligibility for promotion in the transferee region.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pratibha Rani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3792/2019), which held that service in a previous region must be counted for promotion eligibility.

It further applied the principle from Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan (1996) 1 SCC 524, which established that while a voluntary transfer results in the loss of seniority, it does not "wipe out" past regular service for the purpose of experience and eligibility.

Additionally, the court cited M.M. Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 13 SCC 722, affirming that total experience in a feeder cadre across different regions satisfies the requirement for "regular service".

The Tribunal determined that the controversy is no longer res integra as it has been conclusively settled by the Apex Court.

The court reasoned that there is a clear legal distinction between "seniority" and "eligibility for promotion".

While an employee may forfeit seniority (bottom seniority) upon a request-based transfer under the CBDT Policy, the "regular service" rendered in the previous region remains valid for determining the minimum years of experience required for promotion.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea regarding the pendency of a review petition in the Pratibha Rani case, noting that the judgment remains binding and holds the field unless stayed or set aside.

It further dismissed the respondents' reliance on Secretary to Government v. K.C. Devaki (2025), finding it inapplicable to the specific facts regarding Income Tax Department transfers.

It directed the respondents to convene a DPC or Review DPC within three months to consider the applicants for promotion, taking into account their total regular service in the feeder cadre from their previous regions.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.