P. Satyanarayana Rao and Anr. v. S. Vs. P. Sarvani and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7360-7361 of 2002
With
Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the High Court of judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999]
With
Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the High Court of judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999]
Petitioner: P. Satyanarayana Rao and Anr. v. S.
Respondent: P. Sarvani and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 7360-7361 of 2002
With
Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the High Court of judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999]
With
Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2000 of the High Court of judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 17595 and 17749 of 1999]
Judges: Markandey Katju & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 02, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, Senior Advocate, Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prashad, Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mr. Siddharth Patnaik, Mr. Amar Pal, Mr. R. Santhanakrishnan, Mrs. Radha Rani, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr. T.V. George, Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Mr.Abid Ali Beeran P. (for M/s. P.S.N. and Co.), Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy (N.P.), Advocates with him for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
Service and Labour Laws
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 14, 16, 226 – A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, Rule 27(1)(iii) – Seniority – Inter se seniority – Post of Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax Department, a category-11 post – Minimum qualification being Intermediate – Post of Junior Assistant in office of Head of Department – Minimum qualification being Graduation – Member of service being transferred on his own request from one department/office to another – Seniority to be fixed in latter department/office with reference to date of first appointment in said latter department/office. Held that service rendered in earlier office/department cannot be added for fixing of seniority in latter department.
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 14, 16, 226 – A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, Rule 27(1)(iii) – Seniority – Inter se seniority – Post of Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax Department, a category-11 post – Minimum qualification being Intermediate – Post of Junior Assistant in office of Head of Department – Minimum qualification being Graduation – Member of service being transferred on his own request from one department/office to another – Seniority to be fixed in latter department/office with reference to date of first appointment in said latter department/office. Held that service rendered in earlier office/department cannot be added for fixing of seniority in latter department.
Held:
When a person makes an application for transfer, it is obviously a transfer at his own request. Hence, in our opinion, Rule 27(1)(iii) squarely applies. In this case, the appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office of the Head of Department at his own request. If he did not wish to forego his service in the subordinate service, he need not have made any such request and would have remained in the subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the consequences of such transfer and he cannot claim that his service in the subordinate office must be added to his service in the office of the Head of Department for the purpose of seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh appointment on his joining in the office of the Head of Department for the purposes of seniority, in view of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Rules.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
In Civil Appeal Nos. 7360-7361/2002:
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The dispute in this case is about the inter-se seniority between the parties. It may be noted that the post of Junior Assistant in the subordinate office in the Commercial Taxes Department is a Category-11 post under the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules and the minimum qualification for appointment on the said post is Intermediate. On the other hand, the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the Department is a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is Graduation.
Rule 27(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Rules states:
‘The seniority of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter department or office…’
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was transferred from the subordinate office to the office of Head of the Department not at his request but on his making an application. We regret we cannot see any difference. When a person makes an application for transfer, it is obviously a transfer at his own request. Hence, in our opinion, Rule 27(1)(iii) squarely applies. In this case, the appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office of the Head of Department at his own request. If he did not wish to forego his service in the subordinate service, he need not have made any such request and would have remained in the subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the consequences of such transfer and he cannot claim that his service in the subordinate office must be added to his service in the office of the Head of Department for the purpose of seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh appointment on his joining in the office of the Head of Department for the purposes of seniority, in view of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Rules. Thus, in our opinion, there is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
In Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. For the reasons given in our judgment in C.A.Nos.7360-7361/2002, these Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.
7. No order as to costs.
In Civil Appeal Nos. 7360-7361/2002:
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The dispute in this case is about the inter-se seniority between the parties. It may be noted that the post of Junior Assistant in the subordinate office in the Commercial Taxes Department is a Category-11 post under the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules and the minimum qualification for appointment on the said post is Intermediate. On the other hand, the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Head of the Department is a Category-10 post and the minimum qualification there is Graduation.
Rule 27(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Rules states:
‘The seniority of a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one Department or office to another shall be fixed in the latter department or office with reference to the date of his first appointment in the latter department or office…’
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was transferred from the subordinate office to the office of Head of the Department not at his request but on his making an application. We regret we cannot see any difference. When a person makes an application for transfer, it is obviously a transfer at his own request. Hence, in our opinion, Rule 27(1)(iii) squarely applies. In this case, the appellant got transferred from the subordinate office to the office of the Head of Department at his own request. If he did not wish to forego his service in the subordinate service, he need not have made any such request and would have remained in the subordinate office. Once he makes a request for transfer to the office of the Head of Department, then, he must undergo the consequences of such transfer and he cannot claim that his service in the subordinate office must be added to his service in the office of the Head of Department for the purpose of seniority. He will be deemed to have been given a fresh appointment on his joining in the office of the Head of Department for the purposes of seniority, in view of Rule 27(1)(iii) of the Rules. Thus, in our opinion, there is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. Civil Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
In Civil Appeals Nos.7359/2002 and 2548-2549/2004:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. For the reasons given in our judgment in C.A.Nos.7360-7361/2002, these Civil Appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.
7. No order as to costs.
