Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules – Seniority of Absorbed Employees in DME to be Reckoned from Initial Appointment; Proviso to Rule 27(a) Not Attracted
Case Name: Geetha V.M. & Others v. Rethnasenan K. & Others
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 3994–3997 of 2024; 2025 INSC 33
Date of Judgment: 3 January 2025
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal (DB)
Held: The Supreme Court held that employees of the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) absorbed into the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) pursuant to the abolition of the dual control system were transferred by way of absorption in public interest and not on their own request. Consequently, the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, dealing with inter-departmental transfers on request, had no application. The Court ruled that their seniority in DME must be reckoned with reference to their initial appointment in DHS, as preserved under Rule 27(a), Rule 27(c), and Rule 8 of Appendix I of G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008.
Summary: The dispute arose after the State of Kerala, by policy decision, abolished the dual control system under which medical colleges were under the Directorate of Medical Education while the ministerial, nursing, and paramedical staff remained under the Directorate of Health Services. By G.O. (P) No. 548/2008 dated 25.10.2008, staff were given the option to be absorbed into DME. A clarificatory letter dated 24.04.2010 further provided that their seniority would be reckoned from their promotion date (for promotees) or first advice date (for direct recruits) in DHS.
Absorbed employees claimed seniority protection for their past service in DHS, while original employees of DME argued that once absorbed, they should rank junior and be placed at the bottom of the DME list under the proviso to Rule 27(a). The Single Judge upheld the claims of absorbed employees, but the Division Bench reversed, holding that their absorption was akin to an inter-departmental transfer on request, thereby attracting the proviso to Rule 27(a).
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, distinguishing between “transfer on request” and “absorption under policy decision.” It held that absorption in public interest pursuant to government policy could not be equated with voluntary transfer on request. Referring to the Full Bench decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1989), it affirmed that absorbed employees become integral to the new department with continuity of service and seniority. The Court emphasized that the government never intended absorbed employees to forfeit their past service.
Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Kerala High Court Division Bench dated 13.03.2019 was set aside. The Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to redraw the seniority list of DME employees by reckoning the seniority of absorbed DHS employees from their initial appointment, thereby restoring the Single Judge’s view.