Seniority on permanent absorption: prior regular service counts in an equivalent post, and arbitrary curbs on that benefit are unconstitutional.

A deputationist permanently absorbed in an equivalent post retains the benefit of regular service in the parent department for seniority, because such prior service is not wiped out by transfer into the new cadre. Equivalence of posts is assessed by duties, responsibilities, status and qualifications, not pay scale alone; the Sub-Inspector post in the Border Security Force was therefore equivalent to Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. An Office Memorandum that preserved past service but added the words "whichever is later" was held unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16. The offending restriction was struck down, and seniority was to be counted from the date of regular appointment in the parent service.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Sub-Inspector transferred on deputation from the Border Security Force to Delhi Police and permanently absorbed in an equivalent cadre was entitled to count his substantive service in the parent department for seniority in the transferred post; (ii) whether the post of Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force was equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police notwithstanding different pay scales; and (iii) whether the Office Memorandum denying the benefit of past service by using the words "whichever is later" was constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): whether a Sub-Inspector transferred on deputation from the Border Security Force to Delhi Police and permanently absorbed in an equivalent cadre was entitled to count his substantive service in the parent department for seniority in the transferred post.

Analysis: The governing service principle is that where a government servant is transferred or permanently absorbed in the same or an equivalent post, his pre-existing regular service in the parent department is not wiped out for seniority purposes. The Court applied the settled line of authority that deputation followed by absorption should not deprive a regularly appointed employee of the benefit of prior service, particularly where the transfer is into an equivalent cadre.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to count their substantive service in the Border Security Force for seniority in Delhi Police.

Issue (ii): whether the post of Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force was equivalent to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police notwithstanding different pay scales.

Analysis: Equivalence of posts is not determined by pay scale alone. The relevant test includes the nature of duties, responsibilities, status, and minimum qualifications, with salary being only one factor and the last in importance. Since the material factors other than pay did not show a relevant distinction between the two posts, the contrary finding of the Tribunal could not stand.

Conclusion: The two posts were equivalent, and the difference in pay scale did not by itself negate equivalence.

Issue (iii): whether the Office Memorandum denying the benefit of past service by using the words "whichever is later" was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The Office Memorandum was internally inconsistent: it first preserved regular service in the parent department for seniority, but then curtailed that benefit by adding the words "whichever is later". That restriction was held to be unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16. Since the appellants had a right to count their regular service in the equivalent post before absorption, the offending words could not lawfully take away that right.

Conclusion: The words "whichever is later" were struck down as unconstitutional, and the appellants' right to count their service from the date of regular appointment in the Border Security Force was restored.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that a deputationist absorbed into an equivalent post retains the benefit of prior regular service for seniority, and that seniority cannot be curtailed by an arbitrary executive instruction that is inconsistent with constitutional equality.

Ratio Decidendi: When a government servant is permanently absorbed in an equivalent post, his prior regular service in the parent department must be counted for seniority, and an executive instruction that arbitrarily deprives him of that benefit is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

---