Prior regular service remains countable for promotion eligibility after inter-charge transfer.

The applicant was appointed as a Tax Assistant in the Tamil Nadu & Puducherry Region on 15.09.2010.

He was subsequently transferred, on his request and on the principle of bottom seniority, to the Odisha Region and joined there on 23.07.2014.

The applicant was later promoted as Senior Tax Assistant in 2017 and as Inspector of Income Tax in 2019.

He contended that his regular service rendered in the parent Region from 15.09.2010 to 22.07.2014 should be counted for determining his eligibility for promotion in the Odisha Region, though it could not confer seniority upon him there.

Relying on the CBDT instructions, the respondents rejected the claim, asserting that the applicant’s past service could not be counted because he had accepted bottom seniority upon transfer.

The applicant challenged the rejection order dated 14.10.2022 and sought a review DPC, antedating of his promotions, and consequential benefits.

Whether regular service rendered by an employee in the parent Region before an inter-charge or inter-region transfer on compassionate or personal grounds can be counted for determining eligibility for promotion in the transferee Region, notwithstanding placement at the bottom of the seniority list?

Whether the undertaking accepting loss of seniority and the CBDT instruction dated 14.05.1990 barred the applicant from claiming the benefit of his past service for the minimum qualifying service required for promotion?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reconsideration by a review DPC for promotion to Senior Tax Assistant and Inspector of Income Tax, with notional benefits if found eligible?

The Tribunal applied the CBDT instruction dated 14.05.1990, particularly clause 2(f), which provides that service 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; however, it does not expressly exclude such service for determining promotional eligibility.

It also relied on the CBDT communication dated 27.10.2011, which expressly states that an employee transferred to another Commissionerate 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, holding that regular service rendered before compassionate transfer remains regular service and must be counted as experience for promotion, although the employee may lose seniority at the transferee station.

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, which affirmed that prior service in another Region may be counted towards the qualifying experience for promotion.

The Tribunal distinguished between seniority and eligibility for promotion.

Clause 2(f) of the 14.05.1990 instruction affected only the applicant’s placement in the seniority list after transfer; it did not erase or invalidate his regular service in the feeder cadre.

The respondents could not identify any statutory rule or binding instruction expressly excluding the applicant’s earlier service from the minimum qualifying service for promotion.

The undertaking signed by the applicant could not override the Recruitment Rules or impose a restriction beyond the governing instructions.

Applying C.N. Ponnappan and Pratibha Rani, the Tribunal held that service rendered in the parent Region remained relevant experience for promotional eligibility, notwithstanding the applicant’s bottom seniority in Odisha.

It therefore directed reconsideration of the applicant along with affected seniors in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules.

It quashed the rejection order dated 14.10.2022 insofar as it affected the applicant and directed the respondents to convene a review DPC for considering his promotion to Senior Tax Assistant and Inspector of Income Tax after counting his regular service rendered before transfer to Odisha.

The applicant’s seniority in Odisha was not restored; the relief was confined to recognition of his past service for determining promotional eligibility.

If found eligible, he was to receive the promotional benefit on a notional basis from the appropriate date until the date of his actual assumption of the promotional post, subject to consideration of all seniors in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

The OA was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.