The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that when a government employee is transferred at their own request, they cannot claim seniority from their previous post in the new cadre. The ruling clarifies that a request-based transfer is not considered a transfer in public interest, which impacts seniority determination.
The Court observed:
“If a government employee is transferred in public interest, they retain their existing status, including seniority, in the new post. However, if the transfer is made upon the employee's request, they must be placed below the junior-most employee in the new cadre, as per the governing rules.”
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra delivered the verdict in a case involving a Staff Nurse from Karnataka who requested a cadre change to First Division Assistant (FDA) on medical grounds.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: No Evidence of Fraudulent Intent Behind Consent
Case Background
The respondent, a Staff Nurse appointed in 1979, applied for a cadre change in 1985 due to medical reasons. A medical board confirmed her health issues, and she voluntarily agreed to be placed at the bottom of the new cadre.
In 1989, the Karnataka Government approved her cadre change, setting her seniority from that year rather than her initial appointment in 1979. However, in 2007, she contested this decision, arguing that her seniority should date back to her original appointment.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and the Karnataka High Court ruled in her favor, citing the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri K. Seetharamulu (2010), which considered medical-based transfers as public interest transfers, allowing retention of original seniority.
Aggrieved by the ruling, the Karnataka Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the respondent had voluntarily sought the cadre change and had agreed in writing to be placed at the bottom of the new cadre.
“The Tribunal and the High Court committed an error by treating a request-based transfer as a transfer in public interest. The respondent’s seniority should rightfully be counted from the date of her new appointment in 1989, not from her initial appointment in 1979.”
Read Also:- Mumbai Court Grants Bail to 12 Accused in Kunal Kamra Show Vandalism Case
The Court highlighted that the High Court had wrongly relied on the K. Seetharamulu case and failed to consider M.K. Jagadeesh v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2007), which ruled that seniority must be counted from the date of transfer when an employee voluntarily seeks a cadre change.
The ruling was based on two key service rules:
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977
- Rule 16(a)(iii) states that an officer incapacitated for their current post can be transferred to another post, provided they agree to be placed at the bottom of the new cadre.
Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957
- Rule 6 specifies that if a transfer is made at the employee’s request, they must be placed below all existing employees in the new cadre.
The Court reaffirmed the principle established in K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2006), stating:
“A government servant transferred at their own request cannot claim seniority over employees already in the new cadre. Their previous service does not count toward seniority in the transferred post.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Uttarakhand Government to Pay Rs.1 Crore Compensation to Family of Slain Doctor
Similarly, in M.K. Jagadeesh (2007), the Karnataka High Court held:
“If an employee seeks a transfer and gives an undertaking to accept the junior-most position in the new cadre, they cannot later claim seniority from their original appointment.”
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Karnataka Government and upheld the decision to fix the respondent’s seniority from 1989. The High Court's ruling was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
“For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent’s seniority will be considered from 1989.”
Case Title: THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ANR. VERSUS K.C. DEVAKI
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR (Arguing Counsel) Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv. (Arguing Counsel) Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Srijan Sinha, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Mr. Srajan Yadav, Adv.
