Government decides employee transfers; absorption transfers retain seniority under KS & SSR Rules.
Last Updated on January 25, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
Introduction:
In the case of Geetha V.M. & Ors. in. Rethnasenan K. & Ors. [Civil appeal no. 3994-3997 of 2024] The Supreme Court examined critical issues relating to transfers of employees and retention of seniority in the State of Kerala and subordinate services. The case arose out of a dispute over seniority claims between employees transferred by absorption to another department and those promoted in the same department. A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal noted that while the government is the best judge in determining how to use its employees, transfers at the request of employees cannot be considered in the public interest because they are not based on administrative needs. The Tribunal further held that the employees transferred by absorption are entitled to retain their seniority from the previous department under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services (KS & SSR) Rules.
Arguments from both sides:
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate P. Sanjay, argued that transfers made in public interest should be distinguished from expenditure initiated at the behest of an employee. They emphasized that such transfers lack an administrative need and are instead motivated by the convenience or suffering of the employee. The petitioners argued that maintaining seniority from the previous department for employees transferred by absorption would unfairly prejudice those who remained in the original department and progressed through promotions. They argued that seniority rules should favor employees who earn their positions through promotions rather than lateral transfers. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Anil Raj, contended that the Kerala State Rules and the Subordinate Services Rules specifically provide for retention of seniority by employees transferred by absorption in other departments. They argued that such provisions ensure continuity and fairness, especially for employees who have already invested significant years of service in their original department. Respondents also emphasized that refusing to maintain seniority would demotivate employees and disrupt administrative efficiency. Furthermore, they argued that absorption transfers are often initiated in the public interest to address staffing imbalances across departments and cannot be compared to voluntary transfers made at the request of employees.
Judgment of the court:
The Supreme Court upheld the contention of the respondents that employees transferred by absorption to other departments are entitled to retain their seniority from their previous department under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The court clarified that a transfer is an occurrence of service and can occur in the public interest or at the request of an employee. However, he distinguishes between the two scenarios, stating that transfers made in the public interest are aimed at administrative needs and optimization of government manpower, while transfers made at the request of employees meet personal convenience and cannot be considered public interest.
The bench observed, “The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of an employee. At the same time, if an employee requests due to certain difficulties and if the office or government as a case is satisfied, it can publish such employees as per the request, but such transfer cannot be called as transfer in public interest because it is Request of employee and not in the needs of public administration. ” Regarding the preservation of seniority, the Court emphasized that the provisions of the KS&SR aim to preserve the rights of employees transferred by absorption. He noted that such transfers are often required by administrative requirements and differ from voluntary transfers.
The court held that employees who are absorbed in another department retain their seniority to maintain fairness and consistency in service rules. He made it clear that seniority disputes must be resolved through a legal framework to prevent inequality and demotivation among employees.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that retention of seniority for employees transferred by absorption would disadvantage those promoted within the Department. He ruled that the KS&SR expressly provides for such retention of seniority and that these provisions must be implemented in letter and spirit to uphold the integrity of the service rules. The Court reiterated the importance of distinguishing between different types of transfers and ensuring that the statutory framework is followed when determining seniority.
