Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to inter se seniority between Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) promoted as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) in the Western Zone of the office of the Controller of Imports & Exports. The appellants, who were junior LDCs appointed in 1969, accepted transfer on promotion to UDC on ad hoc basis in 1980. Respondents 5 and 6, senior LDCs appointed in 1964, were given the option for transfer on promotion only in 1981 and were thereafter promoted as UDCs. The senior LDCs filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, claiming seniority over the appellants. The Tribunal, by order dated August 14, 1987 in T.A. No.263/86, held that ad hoc promotions cannot confer seniority and that senior LDCs cannot be deprived of seniority by junior LDCs promoted earlier on ad hoc basis unless the seniors had refused the option. The appellants, who were not parties to that order, sought review by Misc. Application No.986 of 1988, which was dismissed on September 29, 1989. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellants contended that under the policy circular issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, juniors who accepted transfer on promotion, even on ad hoc basis, acquire seniority over seniors who were unwilling. They argued that since they were promoted in 1980 and respondents were promoted in 1981, the respondents could not claim seniority over them. The respondents maintained that they were not offered the option in 1980, and therefore their seniority as LDCs could not be forfeited. The Supreme Court examined the circular and the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras v. V.V. Ramanarao, which held that senior LDCs who were unwilling to go on transfer promotion lost their seniority. The Court accepted that principle but distinguished the facts: respondents 5 and 6 were given option for the first time in 1981; they had not refused any earlier option. Since they were seniors in the LDC cadre and were not offered the option in 1980, they could not be made to lose seniority in the UDC cadre merely because junior appellants were promoted earlier on ad hoc basis. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's direction and dismissed the appeal. The Joint Controller of Imports and Exports, Western Zone was directed to determine seniority according to the principles laid down, circulate the list to all candidates, consider objections, finalise the seniority list per rules, and take further action accordingly. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Ad hoc Promotion and Seniority Rights - Not mentioned - Dispute arose between LDCs promoted as UDCs on ad hoc basis under a transfer-on-promotion policy; senior LDCs argued that junior LDCs who accepted earlier ad hoc promotions could not claim seniority over them because senior LDCs were not offered option at the time of junior promotions - Court held that if senior LDCs were not informed or did not refuse option, they retain seniority over juniors promoted earlier on ad hoc basis; ad hoc promotion cannot confer seniority over seniors who were not given option - Held that Tribunal order directing fresh seniority list as per this principle was not illegal; appeal dismissed (Para 1). B) Service Law - Seniority - Effect of Declining Transfer on Promotion - Not mentioned - The Court referred to policy circular which provided that if senior LDCs are unwilling to go on transfer on promotion, juniors who accept get seniority over them; and to Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras v. V.V. Ramanarao that unwilling senior LDCs forego seniority - Held that this principle applies only when senior LDCs were actually offered option and declined; in present case respondents 5 and 6 were not offered option in 1980, so they could not be deemed to have foregone seniority; appeal dismissed (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether junior LDCs promoted as UDCs on ad hoc basis prior in time can claim seniority over senior LDCs who were not offered the option of transfer on promotion at that earlier point, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to prepare seniority list afresh was legal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's direction that seniority list be prepared on the principle that senior LDCs who were not offered the option of transfer on promotion cannot be deprived of seniority by earlier ad hoc promotions of junior LDCs. The Joint Controller of Imports and Exports, Western Zone was directed to determine seniority following the principles laid down, circulate the list to all candidates, consider objections, finalise according to rules, and take action accordingly. No costs.
Law Points
- Ad hoc promotion does not confer seniority
- senior LDCs who were not offered option for transfer on promotion cannot be deprived of seniority
- senior LDCs who declined option forego seniority in favour of juniors who accepted
- seniority determined by date of regular promotion subject to rules and reservation
- policy circular of Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports governs inter se seniority of promotees
