Mitra, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mondal for the petitioners and Mr. Dutta for the State of West Bengal. None appears to the private respondents inspite of service of notices upon them as would appear from the order of Hon'ble Mr. justice Suhas Chandra Sen on 16th May, 1984. It is the case of the petitioners that they ware originally appointed as LOWER Division Clerks in the scale of 230/ - 425/ - in different N.C.C. Offices under Education Department, Government of West Bengal during the years 1963 -1965. Subsequently, the petitioners joined as Lower Division Clerks off deputation in the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office during September and October, 1978. Thereafter, the petitioners were absorbed in the regular posts of Lower Division Clerks in the said Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office in the revised scale of Rs. 300 -685/ - with effect from 1st of April, 1981. The private respondent nos. 6 to 67 also joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation from other offices and they were also absorbed therein on the same terms and conditions as the petitioners. On or about 31st December, 1981 a gradation list of the State Government Employees Group - 'C' in the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office under the Finance Department (Audit) Branch was published by the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and in the said list the petitioners were shown against Sl. nos. 77, 78, 79 and 80 respectively, while the respondent nos. 6 to 67 had been shown against Sl. nos. 14 to 75 although according to the petitioners the said respondents were all juniors to the petitioners no. 1 and respondent nos. 13 to 67 were juniors to the petitioner no. 2, the respondent nos. 22 to 67 were juniors to the; petitioner no. 3 and the respondent nos. 35 to 67 were juniors to the petitioner no. 4 so far as the length of their respective services from the date of their initial appointments prior to such absorption, were concerned.
(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that in the seniority list the respondent nos. 6 to 67 were wrongly shown as seniors to the petitioners on the erroneous computation of their length of services from the day when they joined the Calcutta pay and Accounts Office without, however, taking into account their respective total length of services starting from their initial appointments. The petitioners made several representations to the respondent no. 3 for restoration of their positions in the gradation list according to their length of services under the Government from their initial appointments. Subsequently, the respondent nos. 6 to 38, though juniors in service to the petitioner no. 1 were given Intermediate Selection Grade Rs. 330 - - 535/ - and later on they were promoted to the post of Junior Accountants in the revised grade of Rs. 380 -915/ - ignoring the legitimate claims of the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged such illegal acts on the part of the respondents in this present Civil Order on various grounds.
(3.) The main contention of the petitioners' learned Advocate, Dr. Mondal, inter alia, is that since the petitioners were initially appointed prior' to the initial appointments of the private respondent nos. 6 to 67 in most cases, the disparity made in the gradation list of the State Government Employees Grade 'C' of the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office published on 31st December, 1981 and the subsequent promotion of the respondent nos. 6 to 38 to the Intermediate Selection Grade and allowing them the benefits of the revised pay, scale because those respondents had joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation and were absorbed therein prior to the petitioners, ignoring the legitimate claims of the petitioners, cannot be sustained in law and should be quashed, as according to Dr. Mondal, deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one government department to another as there is not much difference between deputation and transfer and it will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the rest before his transfer is not taken into consideration in competing his seniority in the transferred post, because the transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from which he has been transferred. Thus, according to Dr. Mondal, the petitioners, who were initially appointed prior to most of the private respondent nos. 6 to 67 before they joined the Calcutta Pay and Accounts Office on deputation and subsequently were absorbed therein, should have been placed above most of the said private respondents in the gradation list as seniors to them in service and should have been granted the Intermediate Grade Scales and the revised pay scale prior to them. In support of his contention, Dr. Mondal has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Patwardhan and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ( : AIR 1977 SC 2051) and K. Madhavan and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. ( : AIR 1987 SC 2291).;