Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5300-5301  OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.30141-30142 OF 2011  

M.M. THOMAS & ORS.                      ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

S. A. BOBDE, J.

Leave granted.  

2. The  appellants  have  preferred  these  appeals  against  the

impugned common judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by

the High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.2518 and 2525 of 2011,

whereby the High Court affirmed the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by

the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  Ernakulam  (for  short,  the

‘Tribunal),  dismissing  O.A.  Nos.723  and  970  of  2010,  filed  by  the

private party respondents.  The Tribunal held that the appellants do

not have the requisite experience in the Kerala region as on the date

on which the vacancies were notified, and set aside the inclusion of

their names in the rank list  for promotion to the post of Enforcement

Officer/ Accounts Officer (for short, the ‘EO/AO’). The Tribunal further

held that if the private party respondents are otherwise eligible, the

official respondents are directed to take steps to consider their rank

obtained in the examination and include their names in the appropriate

Page 2

place in the rank list for promotion to the post of EO/AO. The Tribunal

also directed that the next available candidate in the rank list should

be included in the rank list, according to the rank obtained by them.  

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows :  

The appellants were working as Social Security Assistants (SSAs)

in the Karnataka/Tamil Nadu regions of the Employees Provident Fund

Organisation (for short, the ‘EPFO’). They were transferred to Kerala

region and kept at the bottom in the seniority list. The notification was

issued  to  fill  up  the  post  of  EO/AO in  the  Kerala  region.  Both  the

appellants  and  the  private  party  respondents  participated  in  the

aforesaid examination. Subsequently, the rank list was published. The

appellants are at Serial No.1,2,4 and 5 respectively in the rank list and

the promotion list. It was contended by the private party respondents

that  the  inclusion  of  the  names  of  the  appellants  in  these  lists  is

arbitrary and illegal, because they were not eligible.  

4. The rule that governs the eligibility of the appellants reads as

follows :  

In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/ absorption,  grade  from which  promotion/ deputation  /absorption to be made.  

(i) PROMOTION (OTHER THAN  EXAMINATION QUOTA): ………………

(ii) BY PROMOTION ON THE BASIS OF DEPARTMENTAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION

# [Section Supervisor AND Junior Hindi  Translator  with  3  years regular  service  in  the  scale  of Rs.5000-8000/-  and  DEO (Grade-C)  with  three  years' regular  service  in  the  scale  of Rs.5000-8000/-  including  those DEO (Grade-C) who have already put in 5 years' regular service in

Page 3

DEO  (Grade-A)  and  Social Security  Assistants/  Assistants/ Stenographers/ and DEO (grade-A and  B)  with  5  years  regular service  in  the  scale  of Rs.4000-6000/-  in  the respective regions]

5. The appellants as also the private party respondents passed the

departmental competitive examination for the post of EO/AO.  

Apprehending that the appellants will  be promoted earlier, the

private  party  respondents  approached the Tribunal  by  way of  filing

original  applications.  The Tribunal  allowed the said  applications  and

held  that  the  appellants  herein  were  not  treated  as  qualified  for

promotion i.e.  eligible  on the ground that  they had not put in five

years’ service in the Kerala region of EPFO, having relied on the words

in the above quoted Rule which requires five years’ regular service “in

the respective regions”.  

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed original petitions before the

High Court which were also dismissed. Hence these appeals by special

leave.

7. Thus, the only issue before us is whether under the aforesaid

Rule,  the  candidates  who  seek  promotion  through  departmental

competitive examination for the post of EO/AO, should have served,

both in their earlier place of posting and their present place of posting

for  a  period  of  five  years,  or  whether  the  candidates  should  have

served for five years in the region where they seek promotion, which

in this case is Kerala region.

Page 4

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon

perusal  of  the  record,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  words  of  the

aforesaid  Rule  require five years’  regular  service  “in  the  respective

regions”. Thus,  these words  must  be understood to  mean that  the

candidates should have served in the respective regions, that is, the

regions where they were posted earlier  and the region where they

seek promotion all together for five years.  Thus if a candidate has

served  in  one  region  and  then  transferred  to  another,  and  seeks

promotion in that region, the rule does not require that the candidate

must have acquired experience of five years in the region where he

seeks promotion, for being considered eligible.  What is necessary is a

total experience of five years.   This must necessarily be so because

the service to which the rival parties belong, is an All India Services, in

which  the  country  is  demarcated  into  several  regions.  In  All  India

Service,  the  officers  are  posted  from one region to  the  other  in  a

routine manner. The purpose of the rule is that such officers are not

deprived of their experience in the feeder cadre merely because they

have been transferred from one place to another.     

9. It might be noticed that in the transfer order of the appellants

bearing  No.HRM-III/14/1/07/IRT/Genl.  Dated  19.06.2008,  issued  by

Regional  PF  Commissioner  (HRM),  EPFO,  Ministry  of  Labour,

Government of India, and addressed to the Regional PF Commissioners

in-charge  of  the  Region  Tamil  Nadu,  the  following  is  stated  as  a

condition of transfer :  

“His/her past service rendered in cadre of SSA will

Page 5

be  counted  for  the  purpose  of  appearing  in  the departmental examination.……….”

The above condition of transfer fortifies our view regarding the

intent and purpose of the promotion rule.

10. In a similar context, this court in  Union of India & others vs.   

C.N. Ponnappan1 held that an employee who is transferred from one

unit to another on compassionate ground, though placed at the bottom

of seniority list is entitled to have the service rendered at an earlier

unit, counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotion in the unit in

which he is transferred. It was observed in Para 4 as follows:

“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 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 services, 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 …………”

When confronted once again with the similar question in Scientific

Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Anr.  vs. V.M.Joseph2, this court relying

on earlier decision in Union of India (supra) held that the length of

service rendered on an equivalent post in another organization before

the transfer counts, for determining the eligibility for promotion though

such service may not count for seniority.

11. Hence, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment

Page 6

and order passed by the High court as also the aforesaid order/s of the

Tribunal insofar as these appellants are concerned, and hold that the

appellants  are  entitled  to  be  treated  as  eligible  and  qualified  for

promotion in the Kerala region for the post of EO/AO in the Employees

Provident Fund Organisation.    

12. The interlocutory application for impleadment is rejected.       

..................................J  [S. A. BOBDE]

..................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

NEW DELHI  APRIL 17, 2017