Introduction:

In the case Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 of 2024], the Supreme Court examined critical questions regarding employee transfers and seniority retention within the Kerala State and Subordinate Services. The case arose from a dispute over seniority claims between employees transferred by way of absorption to another department and those promoted within the same department. A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal observed that while the government is the best judge in determining how to utilize its employees, transfers on request by employees cannot be considered in the public interest as they are not based on administrative exigencies. The Court further held that employees transferred by absorption are entitled to retain their seniority from their previous department under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR).

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate P. Sanjay, argued that transfers made in the public interest should be distinguished from those initiated by an employee’s request. They emphasized that such transfers lack administrative exigency and are instead motivated by the employee’s convenience or hardships. The appellants contended that retaining 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 asserted that the rules governing seniority should prioritize employees who earn their positions through departmental promotions rather than lateral transfers.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Anil Raj, argued that the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules explicitly provide for the retention of seniority by employees transferred via absorption to another department. They maintained that such provisions ensure continuity and fairness, especially for employees who have already invested significant years of service in their original department. The respondents also highlighted that denying seniority retention would demotivate employees and disrupt administrative efficiency. Furthermore, they asserted that transfers by absorption are often initiated in the public interest to address staffing imbalances across departments and cannot be equated with voluntary transfers made at the request of employees.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the respondents’ contention that employees transferred by way of absorption to another department are entitled to retain their seniority from their previous department under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The Court clarified that transfer is an incidence of service and can occur either in the public interest or at the request of an employee. However, it distinguished between these two scenarios, stating that transfers made in the public interest are aimed at administrative exigencies and optimizing the government’s workforce, while transfers made at the request of employees cater to personal convenience and cannot be deemed in the public interest.

The bench observed, “The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of an employee. Simultaneously, if an employee requests due to some hardship and if the authority or the government as the case may be is satisfied, it may post such employee as per the request, but such transfer cannot be termed as transfer in public interest because it is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the public administration.”

Regarding seniority retention, the Court emphasized that the provisions of the KS & SSR aim to preserve the rights of employees transferred by absorption. It noted that such transfers are often necessitated by administrative requirements and are distinct from voluntary transfers. The Court held that employees who are absorbed into another department retain their seniority to maintain fairness and consistency in service rules. It clarified that seniority disputes must be resolved by the statutory framework to avoid inequities and demotivation among employees.

The Court dismissed the appellants’ argument that retaining seniority for employees transferred by absorption would disadvantage those promoted within the department. It ruled that the KS & SSR explicitly provide for such seniority retention 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 adhered to in determining seniority.