IMPORTANT POINT
A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on the post and regularisation does not connote permanence.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Seniority — Lien — Appellant promoted as Upper Division Clerk in office of District Panchayat w.e.f 12-10-1970 and regularised and was appointed as “Extension Officer (Pts.)” in A.P. Panchayati Raj (Executive Subordinate) Services by order dt. 12-5-1986 — Services of appellant were regularised in category of Senior Assistant with effect from 12-10-1970 — Confirmed seniority list of Senior Assistants as published indicated name of appellant at Serial No. 6 and name of respondent at Serial No. 12 — Pursuant to office circular issued by Commissioner to terminate lien of all who had absented themselves continuously for more than three years — Lien of appellant was terminated — State Govt. set aside the order by which lien of appellant was terminated — Appellant was promoted as Superintendent w.e.f. 1-11-1996 — Promotion of Superintendents to post of District Panchayat Officer was considered — 1st Respondent filed O.A. challenging grant of notional seniority to appellant — Tribunal dismissed application — High Court however allowed the writ and set aside order of Tribunal — Appeal — Concept of lien on post — There would not be a lien unless person was made permanent in a post — Since appellant had never been confirmed in any permanent post, he could not be said that he had a lien which was capable of being terminated — Regularisation of appellant in the post would not amount confirmation — Tribunal’s order did not show in any way first respondent’s service benefits were affected — High Court erred in interfering with order of Tribunal and impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and order of Tribunal affirmed.
       Held : The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the High Court had misunderstood the concept of a lien on a post. He contended, and rightly in our view, that there was nothing like lien on a post, unless a person was made permanent in a post. Strong reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P. [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 524], wherein after examining the concept of lien in Government service, it was observed: “...a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier” [Ibid. at p. 531 (paragraph 24), quoted from: M.P. Tewari v. Union of India, 1974 All.LJ 427], with which view, we are in agreement.(Para 17)
       Falling upon the aforesaid decisions of law, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had never been confirmed in any permanent post and as such, it could not be said that he had a lien, which was capable of being terminated. He drew our attention to the order of the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nizamabad dated 16.12.2001, by which it was declared :
       “Under Rule 29 of (sic-the) Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, the services of Sri S. Narayana as approved probationer in the category of Senior Assistant are confirmed and he is declared to be a Full Member of the services as Senior Assistant with effect from the said date i.e. 12.10.1970.” [Emphasis in the original]
       The counsel contended that this order in no uncertain terms made it clear that the confirmation of the appellant in service came about only when the order dated 16.12.2001 was passed, albeit when it was made retrospectively from 12.10.1970. Consequently, it is urged that there could never have been an occasion for the District Collector, Medak to pass orders dated 20.12.1995 to terminate the non-existing lien of the appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the expression ““Full member” of a service” is defined in Rule 3(8) of the applicable Rules and there was no material before the High Court that there was any order made for confirmation of the appellant under Rule 29 at any time before 16.12.2001.(Para 18)
       For the first respondent, however, it is contended that regularisation is the same as confirmation in service, and therefore, lien would operate from the said date. We are afraid that we cannot accept this contention in the face of clear authority to the contrary, to which we have already referred. Counsel for the first respondent also contended that any relief given to the appellant should not affect any benefit of service, emoluments, allowance and pension etc. available to the first respondent. We do not see how this apprehension can arise. The order of the Tribunal does not in any way show that the first respondent’s service benefits are affected. All that it ensures is that justice is rendered to the appellant. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the State would submit to any orders passed by this Court. We also notice that the State Government has not filed any counter-affidavit in opposition to the appeal.(Para 19)
       In the circumstances, we find merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. We are also of the view that the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the Tribunal.(Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J. — The appellant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk through District Selection Committee on 6.11.1968 in the office of the District Panchayat. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (redesignated as Senior Assistant) with effect from 12.10.1970. The services of the appellant in the said category were regularised with effect from the same day. By an order issued on 12.5.1986, under Rule 10(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, the appellant and certain other employees came to be appointed as “Extension Officers (Pts.)” in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Executive Subordinate) Service. The appellant was allotted to Nizamabad District. The said order made it clear that the appointment was “purely temporary” and that it was “...liable to be terminated at any time without assigning reasons and without prior notice....” and that such an appointment “...would not confer on ...(him)...any rights of probation or preferential claims for further appointment”.

2. By an order dated 24.9.1988, the services of the appellant were regularised in the category of Senior Assistant with effect from 12.10.1970. On 12.11.1991, the appellant made a representation to the Commissioner of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (hereinafter “PRRD”) indicating that he was not willing to work as an Extension Officer (Pts.); that he had found that the names of his colleagues on “other duty” had been included in the seniority list of Senior Assistants in the District Panchayat Office. He requested that his name also be included in the seniority list of Senior Assistant in the office of District Panchayat Office and Divisional Panchayat Officer. The request of the appellant was recommended by the District Commissioner, Nizamabad on 3.1.1992. On 7.4.1992, the Commissioner, PRRD published a provisional seniority list of the Extension Officers in which the appellant’s name was shown at Serial No. 35 and the date of his regularisation was shown as 4.6.1986. Some employees raised objections to the provisional seniority list. After examining the objections, the Commissioner, PRRD by notice dated 9.11.1992, published a revised provisional list and sought objections from the affected employees, if any. In this list, the name of the appellant was shown at Serial No. 5(a) below one R. Prakasam and above one M. Laxma Reddy at Serial No. 6. His date of regularisation was shown as 12.10.1970. The respondent, Md. Ahmedulla Khan was shown at Serial No. 10, below the appellant.

3. On 15.5.1993, the Commissioner, PRRD published a final seniority list as no objections had been received. The confirmed seniority list of Senior Assistants working in the office of District Panchayat Officers of Unit 1 Zone VI as published, indicated the name of the appellant at Serial No. 6 and the date of his appointment as Senior Assistant and date of regularisation, were shown as 12.10.1970. The name of the first respondent was shown at Serial No. 12. The date of his appointment was shown as 15.3.1972 and the date of his regularisation was shown as 7.10.1972. On 22.8.1984, the Commissioner, PRRD issued office circular No.621/6/CPR directing Collectors to terminate the lien of all individuals who have absented themselves continuously for more than three years after serving a notice of seven days on them for termination of the lien. Accordingly on 6.9.1994, the District Collector issued a notice to the appellant for termination of his lien as Senior Assistant. The appellant submitted a representation thereagainst and also claimed that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendent on par with his juniors. On 23.10.1994, the District Collector’s order terminating the lien of the appellant was served on the appellant. On 26.10.1994, the appellant once again made a representation for retention of his lien and for considering his case for promotion as Superintendent on par with his juniors in the District Panchayat Office. By another r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 466

IMPORTANT POINTA person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on the post and regularisation does not connote permanence.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on the post and regularisation does not connote permanence.