JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal’) dated 5.11.2007, by which the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion giving the benefit of the past services at the earlier place of posting has been rejected. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as ‘Seenchpal’ in the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. on 21.9.1978. On his own request with a clear understanding that he would loose seniority, he was transferred from Irrigation Division, Kashipur, Nainital to Irrigation Division, Bijnore on 1.11.1994. When the process for filling up the higher post by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to being unfit was initiated, petitioner who joined at Bijnor on bottom seniority in 1994, also claimed promotion that he was entitled for getting the benefit of his services prior to his transfer at Bijnor. His claim was not considered, hence he preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal which has been rejected vide impugned judgment and order. Hence this petition. 3. The sole question thus arises as to whether a person who has sought transfer voluntarily by his free will and on his own request has joined another department or another unit of the same department can be deprived of benefits of his past services in view of the fact that if he seeks such a change voluntary, with an understanding that he would join another unit/department at zero seniority i.e. below of the persons in the regular cadre of that department on that date. 4. The issue involved herein is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered it in the case of Smt. Renu Mullick v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1152 wherein the Court came to the conclusion that in case the eligibility condition for promotion or other benefits is not depend on seniority, he can be given benefit of the past services. In the said case, the question arose as to whether the promotion which was based on a particular length of service, the service rendered by the employee in earlier department could be taken into consideration. In the said case, the question arose as to whether the promotion which was based on a particular length of service, the service rendered by the employee in earlier department could be taken into consideration. The Apex Court held that as the promotion was depending on the length of service and the rules involved therein did not provide the length of service in the said department itself, she was entitled to take the benefit of her past services. 5. In Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri & Anr. v. V.M. Joseph, AIR 1998 SC 2318 , the eligibility condition for promotion was similar as in earlier case i.e. the length of service and it was held that the issue of promotion should not be confused with seniority and in case the eligibility for promotion had been the length of service, the employee was entitled to take the benefit of the past services. The Court held as under : “Even if a place employee is transferred on his own request, from one to another on the same post, the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as these are two different and distinct factors.” 6. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment, involving the same issue and having similar facts in Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR 1996 SC 764 . 7. In A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. v. R. Parthasarathi & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 425 , the Apex Court while deciding a case wherein the eligibility for promotion had been experience of ten years in service held as under : “Such inter se seniority will be a relevant factor when a number of employees come in the zone of consideration on the basis of ten years experience for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Mere seniority in the cadre will not enable an employee to be considered for such promotion if he lacks experience of ten years as indicated.” 8. Mere seniority in the cadre will not enable an employee to be considered for such promotion if he lacks experience of ten years as indicated.” 8. Thus, in view of the above while deciding the statutory provisions applicable therein, the Court held that as the requisite eligibility was ten years experience and seniority was not the criteria for promotion, the benefit of past services had to be given to the employee. 9. A similar view has been reiterated in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 598 where the eligibility for promotion for time bound promotion scheme in Post and Telegraph Department was 16 years service in the grade. In the said case also, the seniority was held to be of no consequence and it was directed to give benefit of the past service. 10. In Union of India v. V.N. Bhat, 2004 AIR SCW 1399, the question arose that while seeking promotion in the time bound promotion scheme, the past service rendered by an employee who had been assigned bottom seniority list in view of his transfer on his own request, forgoing his seniority, was entitled to be considered for promotion. The Apex Court held that on such transfer the employee merely looses his seniority, he cannot be deprived of other benefits. If the scheme provides for promotion on the basis of an experience, the seniority becomes meaningless and unless there is a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority, employee is entitled to take benefit of his past services. Therefore the case is to be determined on the basis of the statutory rules applicable in a given case. 11. In State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Uttam Vishnu Pawar, 2008 AIR SCW 937, a similar view has been reiterated. 12. In view of the above, the law stands crystallized that where an employee is transferred on his request to another unit or department and losses his seniority as per the rules applicable therein, he cannot be deprived of other benefits except seniority. Thus in a case where the promotion is based on a particular length of service or experience and not based on seniority alone, employee is entitled to take benefit of his past services. 13. Thus in a case where the promotion is based on a particular length of service or experience and not based on seniority alone, employee is entitled to take benefit of his past services. 13. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner sought his transfer voluntarily with a clear understanding that he would join in Bijnore Division at zero seniority and he never challenged the said transfer order or loss of past seniority. Promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority subject to being unfit and not on the basis of length of service and experience. No fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. 14. Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ———