* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6055/2006 SHILPI NAIR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. C.N. Sreekumar & Mr. P.R. Nayak, Advocates. versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 05.05.2008 1. The petitioner Ms. Shilpi Nair was appointed as Stenographer (Grade-III) on 6th July, 1998 and was posed as Steno to Divisional Engineer Phones External, Jabalpur. After her marriage, she applied for transfer to Delhi under Rule 38 of P&T manual Volume-IV. On 11th October, 2002, the petitioner was relieved and her name was struck from the strength of Jabalpur Unit. She was inducted into the office of Chief General Manager, NTR, Delhi. On 16th October, 2002 the petitioner reported for duty and was posted at New Delhi. 2. The petitioner was eligible and she could be considered for promotion to Stenographer Grade-II as per promotion rule after rendering five years of continuous service in Grade-III. 3. The petitioner was considered for promotion to Grade-II by DPC and was promoted to the said Grade on recommendation of DPC, which was duly approved by Cadre Controlling Authority on 12th September, 2003. It is apparent that the petitioner’s service at Jabalpur in Grade-III from 6th July, 1998 till 16th October, 2002, when the petitioner was inducted and posted at New Delhi, was counted for the purpose of qualifying service required for promotion. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the above facts are admitted. It is also admitted that the petitioner was given further promotion to Grade-I and re-designated as PA in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 CDA with effect from 1st January, 2004. It is stated in the counter affidavit that stenographers at Jabalpur, who were senior to the petitioner, filed a writ petition before High Court of Jabalpur praying for similar promotion to the post of PA cadre on the ground that the petitioner was junior to them had become their senior after being posted at Delhi. In these circumstances, direction was given to demote the petitioner and revert her back to the post of Stenographer Grade-III. 5. It is apparent from the facts stated above that the stenographers at Jabalpur and stenographers at Delhi constitute separate cadres and seniority list. Promotional avenues available are also different. The petitioner was admittedly inducted into Delhi cadre on 16th October, 2002. On the date of induction, she was treated as junior most in the said cadre. She lost her seniority in the Jabalpur cadre. The petitioner thereafter had no lien in the cadre at Jabalpur and had lost all her rights in the same. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to PA grade with effect from 1st January, 2004. Persons who were senior to the petitioner at Jabalpur obviously had no concern to the promotion of the petitioner to Grade-I and her re- designation as PA at Delhi. I may note here that in the given situation the petitioner may have been at the disadvantageous position also. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Renu Mullik versus Union of India and Others, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 373, wherein the Supreme Court has held that a transferee is treated as a new entrant for the purpose of seniority but when her case comes up for promotion as per her turn in seniority list, her past service in the previous Collectorate/cadre cannot be ignored for determining her eligibility. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to benefit of her past service from 6th July, 1998 at Jabalpur in Grade-III for the purpose of consideration of seniority and she will be treated as a new entrant with effect from the date of her joining i.e. 16th October, 2003. Similar view has also been taken by Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of Kishore versus The Department of Telecommunication and Others, Writ Petition No. 2724/2007 decided on 27th August, 2007. 7. In these circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Assistant General Manager (HRD), BSNL is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be treated as promoted to Grade-II in terms of letter dated 12th September, 2003 and 20th February, 2004. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 05, 2008 VKR