UNION OF INDIA Vs. C N PONNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These three appeals raise a common question for consideration. The question is whether an employee who is transferred from one unit to other on compassionate grounds, and as a result, is placed at the bottom of the seniority list can have his service in the earlier unit from where he has been transferred counted as experience for the purpose of promotion in the unit where he is transferred. There was a difference of opinion amongst the Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as' the Tribunal') on this question. In C. N. Poonappan v. Union on India and Ors.(Transfer Application No. 770 of 1986) decided on June 20,1986, which has given rise to Civil Appeal No. 1221 of 1987, the Madras Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view that though on transfer on compassionate grounds the employee loses his seniority and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place but for the purpose of promotion his earlier service in the unit from where he was transferred is not wiped out and the said service has to be treated as experience for the purpose of his eligibility for such promotion and if heirers found eligible then the matter of promotion has to be considered on the basis of seniority at the transferred place. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in S. Abdul Khayaum and Ors. v. Union of India (Applications Nos. 1282 and 1284 of 1986 decided on September 30,1986 has, however, not agreed with the said view of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in Poonappan's case (supra) and has held that an emplyee who is transferred on compassionate grounds and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place where he is transferred cannot have his earlier service at the place from where he was transferred counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. Since the Bangalore Bench and the Madras Bench were Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal it was expected that the Bangalore Bench, when it felt inclined to take a view different from that taken by the Madras Bench, should have referred the question for consideration by a larger Bench. Any way, the matter has been considered by a Full Bench of the Tribunal in Transferred Application No. 65 of 1987 wherein the Full Bench has agreed with the view of the Madras Bench in Poonappan's case (supra) and has held that a person who is transferred on compassionate grounds only loses his seniority but he does not lose the benefit of the past service in the pervious unit for the purpose of his promotion.

(2.) Civil Appeal No. 1221 of 1987 has been filed against the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in Poonappan's case (supra). Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989 has been filed against the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated March 15,1988 in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1987 filed by N. Kumarason. Civil Appeal N0.2320 of 1995 has been filed againts the judgment of Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated October 5, 1987 in Transferred Application No. 65 of 1987 filed by K. A. Balasubramaniam. Civil Appeals Nos. 1221 of 1987 and 2320 of 1995 relate to promotion from the post of Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk and Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989 relates to promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade III to Stenographer Grade II.

(3.) We have considered the appeals in the light of provisions contained in the relevant rules. For promotion of a Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk, which is in issue in Civil Appeals Nos. 1221 of 1987 and 2320 of 1995, the relevant sources required "eight years regular service in the grade". Similarly, for promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade III to Stenographer Grade II, which is in issue in Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989 "five years of regular service in the post of Stenographer Grade III was required.