In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of seniority for government employees who are transferred at their own request. The Court ruled that such employees cannot retain their previous seniority in the new post, as this would be unfair to existing employees in the new cadre. This decision underscores the principle that request-based transfers are distinct from those made in the public interest or due to administrative exigencies.
The case in question involved a Staff Nurse appointed in 1979 who sought a transfer to the position of First Division Assistant (FDA) in 1985 due to medical reasons. The Medical Board confirmed her incapacity to continue in her original role, leading her to request a cadre change. In her request, she explicitly agreed to be placed at the bottom of the new cadre's seniority list. The Karnataka Government approved her transfer in 1989, assigning her seniority from that year. However, in 2007, she challenged this arrangement, contending that her seniority should date back to her original appointment in 1979.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and the High Court ruled in her favor, referencing the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri K. Seetharamulu (2010). In that case, medical-based transfers were considered transfers in the public interest, allowing employees to retain their original seniority. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, overturned the High Court's decision. Justice Narasimha, delivering the judgment, emphasized that since the respondent voluntarily sought the transfer and consented to being placed at the bottom of the new cadre, she could not claim seniority from her initial appointment date. Granting her such seniority would be unjust to the existing employees in the new cadre.
The Court clarified that when a government employee is transferred in the public interest, they carry their existing status and seniority to the new post. However, if the transfer is at the employee's own request, they must be accommodated in the new post without disrupting the claims and status of other employees. Generally, such transferees are placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new cadre or department.
This ruling aligns with the Court's consistent stance on the matter. In previous judgments, the Supreme Court has held that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when an employee was not even part of the service. Seniority is typically counted from the date of actual appointment, not from when a vacancy arose or from a prior position in a different cadre. This principle ensures that the rights of existing employees are not adversely affected by the induction of new members who were not part of the service during the relevant period.
Furthermore, the Court has distinguished between transfers made in the public interest and those made at the request of the employee. In the case of Geetha V M & Ors v. Rethnasenan K, the Court observed that while the government is best positioned to decide how to utilize the services of an employee, a transfer made at the employee's request cannot be termed as being in the public interest. Such transfers are based on personal considerations rather than administrative necessities.
The implications of this judgment are significant for government employees considering a transfer to a different post or cadre. It underscores the importance of understanding that a request-based transfer may result in a reset of seniority, potentially impacting career progression and opportunities for promotion. Employees must weigh these factors carefully before seeking such transfers.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision reinforces the principle that seniority in government service is closely tied to the nature and circumstances of an employee's appointment and transfer. While transfers in the public interest allow for the retention of seniority, those made at the employee's request necessitate a recalibration of seniority to maintain fairness and equity among all employees within the cadre. This ensures that the rights and expectations of existing employees are safeguarded, and the integrity of the service's seniority structure is maintained.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.