9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of seniority for transferred Lower Division Clerks (LDCs). 2. Applicability of Government Orders (GOs) and statutory rules on seniority. 3. Prospective application of rules and GOs by the High Court. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of Seniority for Transferred LDCs The primary issue was whether the seniority of LDCs transferred on their own request should be reckoned from their initial appointment date or from the date of their transfer to the new district. The appellants (local LDCs) argued that transferred LDCs should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new district, while the transferred LDCs contended that their seniority should be based on their initial appointment date. The Supreme Court held that in service jurisprudence, a government servant transferred on his own request must forego his seniority till the date of transfer and be placed below the junior-most employee in the new unit. This principle is supported by the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, specifically Rule 27(a) and its proviso, which states that the seniority of persons transferred on request should be determined from the date of joining the new unit. Issue 2: Applicability of Government Orders (GOs) and Statutory Rules The relevant statutory rules and GOs were examined to determine their applicability. The Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, and the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, governed the seniority and transfer of government servants. The GO dated 2.1.1961 and the GO dated 27.5.1971 laid down conditions for mutual or inter-departmental transfers, emphasizing that transferred employees should be placed below the junior-most in the new unit and should not count their previous service towards seniority. The Supreme Court noted that the proviso to Rule 27(a), inserted by a 1976 amendment, categorically provided that the seniority of an employee transferred on request would be determined from the date of joining the new unit. This statutory rule superseded the earlier executive instructions in the GOs. Issue 3: Prospective Application of Rules and GOs by the High Court The Division Bench of the High Court held that the GO dated 2.1.1961 and the proviso to Rule 27(a) should be applied prospectively, thus preserving the seniority list finalized in 1984 and not disturbing the positions of transferred LDCs. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, stating that the High Court had no power to direct prospective application of a rule that had been in force for years, especially when the rule's validity was not under challenge. The Supreme Court concluded that the revised seniority lists dated 13.11.1990 and 22.9.1997, which counted seniority from the date of joining the new district, were proper and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The writ petitions filed by the transferred LDCs were dismissed, but the Court directed that no consequential recovery be made from the transferred LDCs for any excess payment due to altered positions. Conclusion The Supreme Court's judgment reinforced the principle that transferred employees on their own request must forego their previous seniority and be ranked below the junior-most in the new unit. The statutory rules and GOs governing this principle were upheld, and the High Court's direction for prospective application was overturned.
|
