ANIRUDDHA PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as Inspectors in Central Excise and Customs in 1990 and onwards; and were posted at Indore, Bhopal and other Commissionerates. As per the recruitment rules of Group ,,B, ,,C and ,,D employees appointed zone-wise and commissionerate-wise have their separate cadre and seniority. THE Inspectors do not have all India seniority. In normal circumstances and, without their consent, they cannot be transferred outside their commissionerate. THEy are posted and transferred within the jurisdiction of the allotted cadre controlling collectorate.

(2.) BY order dated 5th November, 2003, the petitioners were transferred to Delhi zone on Inter Commissionerate Transfer. They were assigned seniority in the Delhi zone on the basis of their appointment on transfer to Delhi and their past service was ignored and was not counted for the purpose of seniority.

(3.) WE do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The petitioners were allocated respective commissionerates and were assigned seniority within the said commissionerates. Without their consent/willingness, they could not be transferred out of the commissionerates. On 17th October, 2003, in view of the shortage of Inspectors in some of the commissionerates, a policy decision was taken to call for options from the Inspectors for inter-commissionerate transfers. The Inspectors seeking transfer had to give their willingness for the inter-commissionerate transfers. It was specified that their previous seniority would not be counted and the date of joining the Delhi zone would be the relevant date for the purpose of seniority. The petitioners, it appears did have reservation on the aforesaid term, but they accepted the said term and gave undertakings in writing in 2003. They gave up their claim of seniority on the basis of past service in different commissionerate and joined the Delhi commissionerate. WE do not think that they should be permitted to resile from the said undertakings. They cannot take advantage of the policy and transfer, but ignore the terms and conditions on the basis of which they were transferred. Sanctity and inviolability must be attached to the terms on which the transfer was made and to the solemn undertakings executed by the petitioners. These cannot be brushed aside or ignored. In case there was no loss of seniority, many others including those who were senior to petitioners may have applied and expressed their willingness to the transfer. Moreover, the undertakings were furnished in the year 2003. The OA was filed in the year 2009. It is apparent that the petitioners did not object to the undertakings and had accepted the term that their past service in the old commissionerate would not to be counted for seniority in the new commissionerate. The Tribunal has also recorded that no application for condonation of delay was filed. Even otherwise, we do not find that there is any justification to condone the delay. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors, (1999) 8 SCC 304, and Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar, 2010(2) SCC 59 are applicable.