Once an employee is permanently absorbed into another entity, they cease to have a lien with their previous employer under Rule 18(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No. 50 of 2015 and other allied appeals by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said division appeals preferred by the appellant herein – State of Rajasthan, which were filed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the respondents herein to be entitled to receive pensionary benefits in essence by treating their lien to be continuing with the State Government upto the date of their permanent absorption with the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federations (hereinafter referred to as “Dairy Federations”), the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeals.

2. That the respondents herein were initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department either as Animal Husbandry Extension Officer or Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the year 1971. That all of them were subsequently selected after following the due selection process between 1976 to 1978 in the Dairy Federations. That as per the relevant G.O. and the relevant Rules, the respondents continued to have the lien with the parent department / State Government. That the names of the respondents appeared in the seniority list of the Dairy Federations and all of them were promoted in the year 1983 or 1989 in the Dairy Federations. All of them retired as employees of the Dairy Federations between 1999 to 2003. All of them received the retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations.

2.1 Thereafter, after a period of approximately six to nine years, from the date of superannuation from the Dairy Federations and after receiving all the retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations, the respective respondents filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High Court claiming the pensionary benefits from the State Government treating their lien to be continuing with the State. That the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions.

2.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the lien of the respective respondents came to be terminated subsequently in the year 1988/1993 w.e.f. the date on which they were absorbed / made permanent in the Dairy Federations.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred the present appeals before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s), the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals. Hence the present appeals.

3. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the State and Shri Uday Gupta, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respective respondents – original writ petitioners.

4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that all the respective respondents were selected after following the selection process between 1976 and 1978 in the Dairy Federations. It is submitted that all of them were absorbed permanently in the Dairy Federations and they continued to work in the Dairy Federations as employees of the Dairy Federations till they attained the age of superannuation and retired.

4.1 It is submitted that as per G.O. dated 30.01.1976, the respective respondents, who joined the Dairy Federations, their lien was kept for a period of two years or their confirmation in the Corporation / Union, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that therefore, on and after they got confirmed in the Dairy Federations, the respective respondents were not entitled to have any lien elsewhere. It is submitted that therefore the lien could not have been extended beyond a period of two years.

4.2 It is further submitted that therefore, once the respondents became the employees of the Dairy Federations, even as per Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, they c