Case: COAL INDIA LTD Vs. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH

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. This proposition is reinforced from the dictum in C.N. Ponnappan (supra), which has been noted with approval in V.M. Joseph (supra). The two-Judge Bench of this Court in C.N. Ponnappan (supra), observed as follows:?4. The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred.?(emphasis supplied)15. This view has been restated by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in V.M. Joseph (supra), in paragraph 6 which reads as follows:?6. From the facts set out above, it will be seen that promotion was denied to the respondent on the post of Senior Storekeeper on the ground that he had completed 3 years of regular service as Storekeeper on 7-6-1980 and, therefore, he could not be promoted earlier than 1980. In coming to this conclusion, the appellants excluded the period of service rendered by the respondent in the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune, as a Storekeeper for the period from 27-4-1971 to 6-6-1977. The appellants contended that, since the respondent had been transferred on compassionate grounds on his own request to the post of Storekeeper at Cochin and was placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the period of 3 years of regular service can be treated to commence only from the date on which he was transferred to Cochin. This is obviously fallacious inasmuch as the respondent had already acquired the status of a permanent employee at Pune where he had rendered more than 3 years of service as a Storekeeper. Even if an employee is transferred at his own request, from one place to another on the same post, the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors.?(emphasis supplied)16. 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 15 th 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 4 th August, 1990, ought to be reckoned. The view so taken by the High Court commends to us. 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, 1993.17. As regards the Office Memorandum dated 5 th June, 1985, the same 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 inter-company 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. As a result, these appeals must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent had rendered service inGrade 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 inGrade in the new company i.e. CMPDIL. Indeed, his seniority in CMPDIL inGrade will have to be reckoned from the date of his assumption of charge on 15 th May, 1991, but that can have no bearing while determining his eligibility criterion of length of service inGrade for promotion toGrade. For determining the eligibility for promotion toGrade, the service rendered by him in DCC inGrade with effect from 4 th August, 1990, ought to be reckoned. The view so taken by the High Court commends to us. Hence, no fault can be found with the direction given by the High Court to assign notional date of promotion to the respondent inGrade with effect from 12 th November, 1993.17. As regards the Office Memorandum dated 5 th June, 1985, the same 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 fortransfer. 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 fortransfer 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 fortransfer 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 inGrade 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 oftransfer on personal request. As a result, these appeals must fail.