Seniority Not Carried Forward For Police Constables Requesting Transfer To Native Districts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

For reference— Rule 35(b) of the 1996 Rules mandates that when an employee is transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another, his seniority shall be fixed with reference to the date of his joining duty in the later unit.

A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela explained,

“…the legal position is very much clear from Clause (b) of Rule 35 that when an employee was transferred on his own request and not on administrative grounds then his seniority is to be fixed from the date of his appointment in the later unit. So, his seniority in the previous unit is not protected and he has to be placed below the line in the seniority of the regular candidates who are working in the later unit.”

The Division Bench added,

“The obvious reason, the rationale and the object behind Clause (b) of Rule 35 is not to cause any loss or prejudice to the regular employees who are already working in the later unit whose seniority has been fixed at the time of their initial appointment in the said unit. The employees, who are transferred to the said units on their request, cannot disturb the seniority of the regular candidates working in the said unit which is in existence from the time of their initial appointment. Therefore, with the said avowed object Clause (b) of Rule 35 has been incorporated in the Rules to protect the seniority of the regular candidates working in those units and not to cause any prejudice to their service conditions and affect their rights to which they are legally entitled as per the service conditions.”

Facts

The ruling was posited in a writ petition filed by the State challenging an order of the AP Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal had directed to fix the seniority of the respondents— who were transferred to their native zones on their request, as per their original seniority in the previous units where they worked.

The respondents were originally appointed as Constables in the Andhra Pradesh Police Department. Upon written request made by them, they were transferred to their native districts in 1998. The transfer was concluded after the respondents acquiesced to the condition that they shall be assigned the last rank below the regular candidates in the new units by foregoing their seniority in the previous working unit. Consequently, upon joining, they were placed in the seniority list below the employees, who were already working in those units. Aggrieved, they approached the Tribunal challenging the legality of the seniority list.

It is relevant to note that in their pleadings before the Tribunal, the respondents clearly and unequivocally admitted that they themselves had made a request for transfer from the then appointed districts to their native districts, and also gave an undertaking that their transfers shall be subject to assigning the last rank below the regular candidates in the new units and that they shall also forego their seniority in the new working units.

Allowing the applications, the Tribunal held that the police constables were entitled to fixing their seniority in the units to which they were transferred and accordingly directed to fix their seniority accordingly in the later units. Aggrieved, a batch of petitions were filed by the State challenging the validity of the Tribunal's order on the grounds that it contravenes the letter of the 1996 Rules— which govern the service conditions of the Andhra Pradesh Police Department.

The State argued that the Tribunal specifically failed to consider Rule 35(b) of the 1996 Rules. It was also contended that the reliance of the Tribunal on specific Government Orders is unsustainable as the same relates to transfer of employees on administrative grounds.

In contrast, the respondents defended the Tribunal's order, arguing that when the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors— who were transferred from one unit to another— was protected in their later units, the respondents— who were Constables and similarly placed, were also entitled to similar protection of seniority.

The Division Bench was to thus determine whether an employee— who was appointed and posted in one unit at the time of his initial appointment and transferred to another on his request, is entitled to claim seniority as per seniority fixed in the previous unit where he was originally appointed, in the unit to which he was transferred.

Court's Findings:

With respect to the application of Rule 35(b), the Court held,

“The Tribunal completely ignored Clause (b) of Rule 35 of the Rules, which is relevant in the context and which is applicable to resolve the controversy involved before it and to adjudicate the lis before it. The Tribunal has decided the case contrary to the mandate of Clause (b) of Rule 35 …”

With respect to the argument of respondents that their service in the previous units is to be counted to their service in their transferred units for purposes relating to their service benefits etc., the Court held,

“That was not denied to them by the State and it is settled law that even in case of their transfer on request, from one unit to another, their past service in the previous units will be reckoned to their service in the present units for all other purposes relating to their service benefits etc.. However, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, we make it clear that their past service in the previous units shall be counted and taken into consideration along with their service in the present units for the purpose of granting all other service benefits.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions and set-aside the order of the Tribunal.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NOS: 17491 OF 2017 and batch

Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.J.Narasimhulu

Click Here To Read/Download Order