Service Law– Promotion – Inter-company transfer– Past service rendered in the parent unit, if to be considered– Respondent, joined Dankuni Coal Complex (DCC), of the appellant company in E-2 Grade on 4th August, 1990 – On respondent’s request he was transferred from DCC to Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL), a subsidiary of the appellant company, in E-2 Grade– Respondent joined CMPDIL on 15th May, 1991 – Policy of appellant-Company that an employee would lose his past seniority in his existing Grade in the event of an inter-company transfer, if the request for transfer was made by the employee himself– Though, respondent acquired requisite eligibility (3 years) for promotion to E-3 Grade in September, 1993, however, he was promoted to the E-3 Grade only vide order dated 12th December, 1994– Appellant excluded respondent’s work experience at DCC (i.e. 4th August, 1990 to 14th May, 1991) while considering his eligibility for promotion – Writ petition filed by respondent for grant of notional seniority in the E-3 Grade w.e.f 12 th November, 1993– Allowed – Held: Respondent is not claiming seniority over any person already working in CMPDIL as there was no senior person working in E-2 Grade when the respondent joined– Limited claim of the respondent is that the service rendered by him in the parent unit (DCC) from
4 th August, 1990 in E-2 Grade be reckoned for the purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of E-3 Grade whilst working in CMPDIL– High Court justly accepted the claim of the respondent that for determination of his eligibility for promotion, his length of service in DCC must be reckoned– That cannot be confused with the issue of seniority in CMPDIL as they are two different factors– Appellant’s policy deals with the latter– There is no express stipulation in the said policy to even remotely suggest that on seeking inter-company transfer on personal grounds, the executive concerned would lose even his past service rendered in the parent unit (DCC) for all purposes– Service rendered by him in DCC ought to be taken into account for all other purposes, other than for determination of his seniority in E-2 Grade in the new company, CMPDIL– Indeed, his seniority in CMPDIL in E-2 Grade will have to be reckoned from the date of his assumption of charge on 15 th May, 1991– However, that can have no bearing while determining his eligibility criterion of length of service in E-2 Grade for promotion to E-3 Grade– No fault in the direction given by the High Court to assign notional date of promotion to the respondent in E-3 Grade with effect from 12th November, 1993.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The office order pursuant to which the respondent joined Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL) makes it amply clear that the seniority of the respondent will be reckoned from the date he joins CMPDIL. It is also seen that when the respondent joined CMPDIL on 15th May, 1991, there was no senior person working in E-2 Grade. On a fair reading of Clause 11 of the policy, there is nothing to indicate that the transferee would lose his past service rendered in the parent company for all purposes. The policy of forfeiture of seniority in the parent company, however, is limited to the executives who seek inter-company transfer on personal grounds. That is to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the executives already working in the transferred company. For that reason, the seniority of the executives seeking inter-company transfer on personal request is fixed as if he had entered the concerned Grade on the date of assumption of charge in the transferred company. It has been made explicitly clear that the executive seeking intercompany transfer on personal grounds will lose his past seniority in the Grade. No more and no less. Indubitably, the respondent is not claiming seniority over any person already working in the new company (CMPDIL) before the date on which he assumed charge thereat on 15 th May, 1991. The limited claim of the respondent however, is that the service rendered by him in the parent unit (DCC) from 4th August, 1990 in E-2 Grade be reckoned for the purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion to the post of E-3 Grade whilst working in CMPDIL. The High Court justly accepted the claim of the respondent that for determination of his eligibility for promotion, his length of service in DCC must be reckoned. That cannot be confused with the issue of seniority in CMPDIL as they are two different and distinct factors. The policy in the form of clause 11 deals with the latter. There is no express stipulation in the policy – be it clause 11 or any other official document – to even remotely suggest that on seeking inter-company transfer on personal grounds, the executive concerned would lose even his past service rendered by him in the parent unit (DCC) for all purposes. In absence of such a stipulation, the claim of the respondent could not have been rejected by the department. [Paras 12-14] [479-E-F ; 480-B-G]
1.2 In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent had rendered service in E-2 Grade on regular basis in DCC from where he was transferred to CMPDIL, on personal grounds. The service rendered by him in DCC can be and ought to be taken into account for all other purposes, other than for determination of his seniority in E-2 Grade in the new company i.e. CMPDIL. Indeed, his seniority in CMPDIL in E-2 Grade will have to be reckoned from the date of his assumption of charge on 15th May, 1991, but that can have no bearing while determining his eligibility criterion of length of service in E-2 Grade for promotion to E-3 Grade. For determining the eligibility for promotion to E-3 Grade, the service rendered by him in DCC in E-2 Grade with effect from 4th August, 1990, ought to be reckoned. The view so taken by the High Court commends to this Court. Hence, no fault can be found with the direction given by the High Court to assign notional date of promotion to the respondent in E-3 Grade with effect from 12 th November, 1993. [Para 16] [482-C-E]
1.3 Further, the Office Memorandum dated 5th June, 1985 (which clarified the Policy), does not militate against the respondent. It is a different matter that it addresses the difficulty expressed about the denial of opportunity of promotion to the executives who opted for inter-company transfer. On a fair reading of this Office Memorandum, it is discernible that the department has clarified the position that if the concerned executive has already completed service for a specified period including the period of service with the old company, would become entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher Grade. If so, not granting similar advantage to the executive who opted for intercompany transfer on personal request and who incidentally enters at number one position in the seniority in the new company would be anomalous. Concededly, what is affected in terms of the policy for inter-company transfer on personal request, is only the seniority position in the new (transferred) company – which would commence from the date of assuming office thereat. By no stretch of imagination, it can affect the length of service in E-2 Grade in the parent company. The two being distinct factors, neither the policy nor the office memorandum would be any impediment for reckoning the period of service rendered by the respondent from August, 1990 in DCC, albeit a case of inter-company transfer on personal request. [Para 17] [482-F-H; 482-A-B]
Union of India and Ors. v. C. N. Ponnappan (1996) 1 SCC 524 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 220 : Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Anr. v. V. M. Joseph (1998) 5 SCC 305 : [1998] 1 SCR 177 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.