Past Service Counts Towards Eligibility for Time-Bound Promotion Despite Loss of Seniority in Request Transfers.

The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Assistant Teachers (LB)). They were subsequently transferred from one district to another based on their own requests

Upon transfer, they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list in their respective new districts

The petitioners filed representations seeking that their past services prior to the transfer be counted toward their seniority for the purpose of promotion, which remained pending before the respondent authorities

They approached the High Court seeking a direction for the authorities to decide these representations in light of existing judicial precedents

Whether the past services of an employee transferred on their own request can be counted for the purpose of determining eligibility for time-bound promotions or seniority

The court relied on the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India (1999) 2 SCC 119, which distinguishes between "seniority" and "eligibility for time-bound promotion." While a request-transfer might result in the loss of seniority (bottom-ranking), the past service must still be counted toward the "qualifying service" required for eligibility for higher grades or time-bound promotion schemes

The court further applied the Division Bench judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Smt. Reeta Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal No. 475 of 2015), which adopted this distinction

The Court examined the petitioners' grievance regarding the non-consideration of their prior service periods following voluntary transfers

Referencing Smt. Reeta Singh and Dwijen Chandra Sarkar, the Court noted that seniority and time-bound promotions are distinct concepts

The Court reasoned that even if an employee accepts the bottom of the seniority list upon a request transfer, their past service cannot be ignored when computing the total number of years of qualifying service for eligibility-based benefits

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to allow the petitioners to present these legal arguments directly to the competent administrative authorities

The respondents were directed to decide the said representations by way of a speaking order within 90 days of receipt