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

The applicant was appointed as Stenographer Grade-III under the Mumbai Region on 1 April 2009 and was promoted as Stenographer Grade-II with Grade Pay of ₹4,200 on 2 January 2014.

He was subsequently transferred on compassionate/inter-charge transfer from the Mumbai Region to the Odisha Region and joined there on 12 October 2015.

Pursuant to the transfer, he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list and reverted to the lower Grade Pay of ₹2,400, with pay protection.

The applicant contended that his regular service rendered in Mumbai from 1 April 2009 to 12 October 2015 ought to be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion to Stenographer Grade-I, although it could not be counted for seniority in Odisha.

The respondents rejected his claim on the basis of the CBDT’s inter-charge transfer instructions and the undertaking furnished by him.

The applicant challenged the rejection order dated 14 October 2022 and relied on the CAT Cuttack decision dated 2 December 2019 and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pratibha Rani v. Union of India .

Whether regular service rendered by the applicant in the Mumbai Region before his inter-charge transfer to the Odisha Region could be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-I.

Whether the condition placing the applicant at the bottom of the seniority list, and the undertaking that his past service would not count for seniority, also excluded that past service from the minimum qualifying service required for promotion.

Whether the respondents were required to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee after taking the applicant’s previous regular service into account.

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 relevant seniority list.

It also relied on the inter-charge transfer clarification dated 27 October 2011/2021, which expressly provides that a transferred employee will remain eligible for promotion to the next higher grade based on the eligibility of the parent Commissionerate.

The Tribunal followed Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan , (1996) 1 SCC 524, holding that regular service in the previous station remains valid service and must be counted as experience for promotion notwithstanding bottom seniority on transfer.

It further relied on M.M. Thomas v. Union of India , (2017) 13 SCC 722, and Pratibha Rani v. Union of India , Civil Appeal No. 3792/2019, decided on 10 April 2019, which establish that previous regular service in the same cadre cannot be excluded from promotion eligibility merely because the employee was transferred to another region.

A restriction affecting eligibility for promotion must be supported by the applicable Recruitment Rules or a valid governing instruction; an undertaking cannot override those rules.

The Tribunal distinguished between seniority and eligibility for promotion.

Paragraph 2(f) of the CBDT instruction restricted the applicant’s seniority after transfer but did not state that his previous regular service would be disregarded for calculating qualifying service for promotion.

The applicable inter-charge transfer clarification similarly preserved the transferee’s promotion eligibility of the parent Commissionerate.

Applying C.N. Ponnappan and Pratibha Rani , the Tribunal held that the applicant’s service in Mumbai was regular service in the same cadre and therefore constituted relevant promotional experience.

His placement at the bottom of the Odisha seniority list and the undertaking furnished by him could not lawfully convert a seniority restriction into a bar against consideration for promotion, particularly in the absence of any Recruitment Rule or instruction expressly excluding such service.

Since the applicant’s eligibility had not been assessed on that basis, a review DPC was necessary, with consequential consideration of similarly situated seniors in the Odisha Region.

The rejection order dated 14 October 2022 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s promotion to Stenographer Grade-I by convening a review DPC and counting his regular service rendered in the Mumbai Region before transfer for determining his eligibility.

The applicant’s seniority in Odisha would nevertheless remain governed by the bottom-seniority principle applicable to inter-charge transfers.

If found eligible, he was to receive promotion on a notional basis up to the date on which he actually assumed promotional duties, subject to consideration of all seniors in the Odisha Region under the Recruitment Rules.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.