2009 Supreme(SC) 476

2009(4) Supreme 293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S.B. Sinha, B. Sudershan Reddy and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. — Appellants
versus
S.N.Tiwari & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1609 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6088 of 2007)
With
Civil Appeal No.1610 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C )No.7658 of 2007
Decided on : 16-03-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Lien of a government employee over the previous post ends only if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis.

Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Service Rules – Rule 18 – Lien – A government servant’s lien on a post cannot be terminated in any circumstance even with his consent if it results in leaving the government servant without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post – A government servant’s lien on a post stands terminated only on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne – In absence of anything to show his appointment on in a substantive capacity on permanent basis his lien in the parent department subsists. (Para 11)

        (b) Rajasthan Service Rules – Rule 18 – Lien – Lien of a government employee over the previous post ends only if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis – In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. (Para 13)

        (1989) 4 SCC 99 – Relied upon.

        (c) Service Law – Lien – Lien of a government employee is the right of the government employee to hold a permanent post substantively to which he has been permanently appointed. (Para 14)

        1992 Supp (1) SCC 524 – Relied upon.

        (d) Service Law – Lien – Respondent’s continuing to work for a long period outside the department by itself would not result in loss of lien. (Para 15)

        (e) Estoppel – Respondent informing the department of his intention to continue lien way back in 1991 – Department not raising any objection – It cannot go back and contend on respondent’s retirement that he lost his lien. (Para 16)

       Facts of the case :

        1. The respondent was initially appointed as Investigator Grade-II in the Department of Economic and Industrial Surveys of Government of Rajasthan. He joined his duty on 27.4.1959.

        2. The respondent along with other similarly situated employees were declared surplus by the Department but all of them were sent to work in the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Jaipur.

        3. On 3.12.1980 while the respondent was working as a Statistical Inspector under Medical and Health Department, he was appointed on purely urgent temporary basis as a Homeopathic Doctor under ESI Scheme for a period of 6 months or till the selection of a candidate by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission whichever was earlier. He was accordingly relieved to join his duty as a Homeopathic Doctor w.e.f 6.12.1980. The respondent continued in that capacity till his retirement on 31.8.1994 on attaining the age of superannuation since no alternative arrangement was made by the State of Rajasthan.

        4. The respondent vide letter dated 8.4.1991 addressed to the Director of Economics and Statistics exercised his option to have lien continued in the Subordinate Statistical Services for the purposes of protection of financial interests/promotions to higher post in statistical services.

        5. The respondent filed the writ petition No. 4832 of 1991 with a prayer seeking directions as against the Health Department not to send him back to the parent department and allow him to continue to work on the same post as Homeopathic Doctor and fix his salary/pay in the regular pay-scale attached to that post. The respondent also filed writ petition No. 1663 of 1997 after 6 years of the aforesaid writ petition seeking directions as against the Director of the Directorate of Economic and Statistics Department to consider his case and recompute the vacancies from 1964 and onwards and to give him all promotions, seniority, financial benefits, pay fixation etc. from the date, his immediate juniors have been promoted from the post of Statistical Inspector to Deputy Director. The respondent also claimed the pensionary benefits by duly fixing his seniority and promotion etc.

        6. Both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing together. The High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was temporarily appointed to work as Homeopathic Doctor in Medical and Health Services Department and always retained his lien in the Economic and Statistics Department and therefore entitled to reliefs as claimed by him in writ petition No. 1663 of 1997. No relief was granted in writ petition No. 4832 of 1991 since the respondent/writ petitioner did not press for the same.

       Finding of the Court :

        High Court rightly concluded that respondent’s lien subsists.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.