Past service before inter-charge transfer counts toward promotional eligibility despite bottom-seniority placement.

The applicant was appointed as Stenographer Grade-II in the Mumbai Region on 28 December 2012.

She was subsequently granted inter-charge transfer on compassionate grounds to the Odisha Region and joined there on 27 February 2017, subject to being placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferred charge under the CBDT’s instructions dated 14 May 1990.

The respondents rejected her claim on 14 October 2022, asserting that she had undertaken to forgo the benefit of her past service upon transfer and had not completed the requisite service in the Odisha Region.

The applicant therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether service rendered by the applicant as Stenographer Grade-II in the Mumbai Region before her inter-charge transfer to Odisha could be counted for determining her eligibility for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I, notwithstanding her bottom seniority in the Odisha Region?

2. Whether the undertaking given by the applicant at the time of transfer could validly exclude her past regular service from the qualifying service prescribed for promotion?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to reconsideration of her promotion claim through a review DPC, with consequential or notional benefits?

The Tribunal applied the CBDT instruction dated 14 May 1990, particularly paragraph 2(f), which provides that service rendered in the old charge will not count for seniority in the new charge and that the transferee will be placed at the bottom of the cadre seniority list.

It also relied on the CBDT clarification dated 27 October 2011, which expressly provides that an inter-charge transferee will rank below officers already regularly appointed in the new charge but will retain 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, which holds that regular service rendered before compassionate transfer remains valid service and must be counted as experience for promotion, notwithstanding loss of seniority.

It further relied on M.M. Thomas v. Union of India, (2017) 13 SCC 722, which recognises that the total regular service rendered in different regions may be aggregated for satisfying the qualifying-service requirement, and on Pratibha Rani v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019, judgment dated 10 April 2019, which specifically held that pre-transfer service in the same cadre must be counted for promotion eligibility after an inter-region compassionate transfer.

The Tribunal distinguished between seniority and eligibility for promotion.

Paragraph 2(f) of the 1990 CBDT instruction restricted the applicant’s past service only for purposes of fixing seniority in Odisha; it did not state that such service would be disregarded for determining the minimum qualifying service for promotion.

The later CBDT clarification reinforced this distinction by preserving the transferee’s promotional eligibility while regulating placement below existing officers in the new charge.

Since the applicant’s service in Mumbai was regular service in the same cadre, the principles in C.N. Ponnappan, M.M. Thomas and Pratibha Rani required that it be treated as qualifying experience for promotion.

The undertaking and any contrary stipulation in the transfer or posting order could not override the applicable recruitment rules or administrative instructions, particularly where the governing clarification expressly retained promotional eligibility.

The respondents’ reliance on the applicant’s failure to complete the requisite period exclusively in Odisha was therefore legally unsustainable.

The rejection order dated 14 October 2022 was quashed.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s promotion claim by counting her past service and to conduct a review DPC in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules.

If found eligible, she was to receive promotion according to her proper turn, with consequential benefits and notional promotion from the relevant date until her actual assumption of the promotional post; similarly placed seniors in the Odisha Charge were also to be considered.

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