REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Provident Fund commissioner has filed this writ petition against the order of the Central administrative Tribunal, whereunder the Tribunal, while allowing O. A. No. 308 of 2003 filed by the present Respondent No. 2, observed that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to be considered for the purpose of promotion under Time-Bound promotion Scheme, dated 17. 3. 1992.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: - THE present Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Army Head Quarters, New Delh i , in the year 1982. Subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the said organisation on 18. 1. 1989. However, thereafter, on his own request he was appointed on transfer as Lower Division Clerk under the present petitioners" organisation by order dated 8. 4. 1991 and at that stage he was treated as a fresh recruit in the Department. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 8. 9. 1995. THEreafter, the present respondent no. 2 filed an application for being considered for the benefit of One Time bound Promotion Scheme, dated 17. 3. 1992, which had been given effect from 1. 1. 1992. THE provision contained in the scheme is to the following effect: - ". . . All Upper Division clerks who have completed 17 years of Clerical Service in each region as on 31. 12. 1991 will be placed in the next higher grade i. e. Rs. 1400-2300 on non-functional basis. THE number of Upper Division Clerks to be placed on higher grade in each region is furnished in Column-3 of Annexure "a" on the basis of the information supplied by each region. "

(3.) THE aforementioned decisions have been followed by this Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of india { (1999) 2 SCC 119} in the following paras: (SCC opp. 124-125, paras 14 & 17 ) "14. THE words "except seniority" in the 1983 circular, in our view, mean that such a benefit of a higher grade given to the transferees will in no way affect the seniority of employees in the P&t Department when the turn of the P&t employees comes up for promotion to a higher category or post. THE said words "except seniority" are intended to see that the said persons who have come from another Department on transfer do not upset the seniority in the transferee Department. Granting them higher grade under the Scheme for time-bound promotion does not, therefore, offend the condition imposed in the transfer order. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants are entitled to the higher grade from the date on which they have completed 16 years and the said period is to be computed on the basis of their total service both in the rehabilitation Department and the P&t Department. . . . 17. On the facts of the present case and especially in view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that when the transfer is in public interest and not on request, the two employees transferred cannot be in a worse position than those in the above rulings who have been transferred on request and who in those cases accepted that their names could appear at the bottom of the seniority list. Even in cases relating to request transfers, this Court has held, as seen above, that the past service will count for eligibility for certain purposes though it may not count for seniority. &quot ;