Voluntary Transfer Causes Loss Of Seniority, Not Past Service For Promotion Eligibility: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a member of the Railway Protection Force who seeks transfer on request or through mutual exchange loses seniority at the transferred place, but such transfer does not wipe out the employee's past service for determining eligibility for promotion.A Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India and affirmed the order of the Single Judge allowing Sub-Inspectors to participate in the promotional process to the post of Inspector.The dispute arose after the Railways published a list of eligible Sub-Inspectors for promotion to the post of Inspector under a notification dated 23 August 2018. The writ petitioners were excluded from the list despite having completed the required eight years of service as Sub-Inspector. The Railways justified the exclusion by relying on Rule 99.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and a Railway Board communication dated 1 January 2018, contending that the petitioners had sought transfer to the Eastern Railway on request and had consequently lost seniority.The Court observed that Rule 99.2 only stipulates that an employee transferred on request would be placed below existing members in the seniority list at the transferred place, but the rule does not obliterate the employee's earlier service. The Bench held that eligibility for promotion, which required eight years' continuous service as Sub-Inspector, must be calculated by counting service rendered irrespective of the zone of posting.Drawing a distinction between seniority and eligibility, the Court held that while the petitioners had indeed sacrificed their seniority due to the voluntary transfer, their length of service remained intact for the purpose of determining eligibility to participate in the promotion process.The Bench further held that the Railway Board's communication dated 1 January 2018—which required employees transferred on request to complete eight years of service in the new zone before being considered for promotion—was inconsistent with Rule 99.2 and therefore unsustainable. The Court also noted that the Railway Board itself issued a corrigendum on 10 January 2018 correcting the directive.Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court of India, including Union of India v. Deo Narain and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph, the Court reiterated that even in cases of voluntary transfer, past service cannot be ignored while considering eligibility for promotion.Accordingly, the Court held that the writ petitioners were entitled to participate in the promotion process under the 2018 notification, though their promotion would be considered only after those placed above them in the seniority list are either promoted or found ineligible.Case: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Sarkar & Ors.Case No: MAT 406 of 2020Click here to read order

Voluntary Transfer Causes Loss Of Seniority, Not Past Service For Promotion Eligibility: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags