- (1.) In C. A. No. 3133/93. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th of July, 1992 in O.A. No. 247 of 1991 is being assailed in this appeal by the Union of India. The question for consideration is whether the past service rendered by an employee under the redeployment scheme can at all be counted for the purpose of his experience for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed on the basis of the redeployment scheme by order dated 6th of March, 1986 as Lower Division Clerk on a temporary basis in the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad and it was clearly indicated in the appointment order that he will take the junior most position in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk of the Press. In 1990 certain posts of Upper Division Clerk fell vacant. The promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk from Lower Division is governed by a statutory rule framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, called the Security Printing Press Recruitment Rules, 1985. Under the said rule for being eligible for consideration for promotion, the requirement is Lower Division Clerk with regular service of eight years in the grade. Admittedly the respondent had not served eight years as a Lower Division Clerk in the organisation in which he was brought by way of redeployment. But he filed the application before the Tribunal contending inter alia that the appointment order merely indicates that he will obtain junior most position in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk and that does not wipe of the past experience which he had acquired in the earlier organisation and therefore that should be taken into account a experience as required under the recruitment rules for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment having accepted to said contention and having directed the Union of India to consider the respondent for being promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, this appeal has been preferred.
(2.) Mr. V.C. Mahajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India contends that in view of the statutory rule clearly indicating that regular service of eight years in the grade would make a Lower Division Clerk eligible for being considered for promotion to the Upper Division Clerk, the Tribunal committed error in taking into account the past service rendered by the respondent and directing the Union Government to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the Upper Division Clerk. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that in the absence of any embargo in the appointment order or in any other provision the past experience was required to be counted for the purpose of deciding the eligibility for promotion of respondent to the Upper Division Clerk and consequently the Tribunal has not committed any error. Having considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant recruitment rules governing the question of promotion we are of the considered opinion that redeployed employee who has been posted in the printing press must render eight years of service in the Lower Division Clerk in the Printing Press as to be eligible for being considered for promotion in the Upper Division Clerk. The expression "regular service of eight years in the grade" would connote rendering eight years of service in the Organisation to which he has been appointed. In a somewhat similar situation this Court has considered similar expression in the case of Union of India v. K. Savitri, reported in (1998) 2 Scale 221 it has been held that the past service of redeployed surplus employee cannot be counted for his seniority in the new Organisation and equally the past experience also would not count as the so-called past service rendered will not be service in the grade. The aforesaid decision interpreting the similar expression "service in the Grade" would equally apply in the present case where the statutory rule also uses the expression regular service of eight years in the Grade.
(3.) In this view of the matter the Tribunal committed serious error in counting of past service of the respondent and directing the Union Government to consider his case for promotion to the Upper Division Clerk. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and O.A. 247 of 1991 is dismissed. The appeal is allowed but in circumstances no order as to costs. In C.C. 23295/93;