SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
L.R. Patil – Appellant
Versus
Gulbarga University – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3254 of 2013
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Service Law - Pensionary benefits - If a government servant seeks employment in another unit or department or in another cadre or grade in same department under Rules, his/her lien on original appointment shall be continued to be maintained until absorbed in department or cadre in which he/she is newly appointed - In case employee is absorbed, he/she shall be entitled to benefit of past service for the purpose of leave and pension - If appellant was never permanently absorbed or confirmed on post of Assistant Registrar, then his lien shall continue on original post of Office Superintendent - If another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation of public service - Relieving order cannot be treated as resignation - Appellant's lien on original/previous post of Office Superintendent shall be maintained - Appellant will be notionally entitled to all service benefits including seniority, consequential promotions and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors - Impugned order set aside. [Rule 252(b) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules] (Paras 14, 15, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant assails tenability and validity of judgment dated 23.10.2009 of Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga passed in W.A. No. 10003 of 2009, by which order passed by Single Judge on 27.08.2008 in W.P. No. 4066 of 2006 allowing petition holding that appellant had lien over his previous post and directing respondent-University to pay service and pensionary benefits, was set-aside.
Findings of Court:
Considering facts and circumstances of case and in order to do complete justice, appellant will be entitled to all service benefits including seniority, consequential promotions and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors, though notionally, since he superannuated on 30.06.2007 and has not worked on promoted post.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The appellant assails the tenability and validity of the judgment dated 23.10.2009 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga passed in W.A. No. 10003 of 2009, by which the order passed by learned Single Judge on 27.08.2008 in W.P. No. 4066 of 2006 allowing the petition holding that the appellant had lien over his previous post and directing respondent-University to pay service and pensionary benefits, was set-aside.
2. In the present case, the short questions of law which fall for consideration are:
(ii) Whether in the facts of the case, on joining the new post, the appellant’s lien on the original/previous post will be continued to be maintained, until he is permanently absorbed in the new department or cadre in which he is subsequently appointed?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief as prayed by the appellant in the writ petition to consider him for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar in the previous/original cadre at par with his juniors and consequential benefits on retirement can be allowed? If yes, to what extent?
3. The undisputed facts are that, appellant was appointed on 10.08.1972 as Junior Assistant in Bangalore University. Later, he was transferred to Gulbarga University on 21.07.1981 and promoted to the post of ‘Assistant Office Superintendent’. Eventually, vide office order dated 07.08.1987, appellant along with one ‘Sri. A. Raghavendra’ and other serving Assistant Office Superintendents, were promoted to the post of ‘Office Superintendent’ with immediate effect subject to satisfactory completion of probation period of 1 year. The University by office order dated 10.07.1990 declared that appellant had completed his probation ‘satisfactorily’ on 08.08.1988. In terms of the said declaration, the appellant was w.e.f. 07.08.1987, substantively appointed to the post of ‘Office Superintendent’.
4. Subsequently, in 1993, the University invited applications for appointment to the post of ‘Assistant Registrar’ via direct recruitment. The appellant applied for the said post and was selected. As per the terms of the appointment, the appellant had to serve as a probationer for a period of two years, before he could be confirmed on the said post. On his appointment, respondent-University vide office order dated 08.04.1993 relieved the appellant from the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 04.02.1993, and duly recorded that he is being relieved to accept the another appointment as ‘Assistant Registrar’ in the Gulbarga University. The order further recorded that its contents shall be noted in the service book. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid office order dated 08.04.1993 is being reproduced for ready reference as under:
Dated: 8.4.1993
ORDER
In pursuance with the Rule 252(b) of KSCR’s read with O.A. No. FD 263 SRS 71 dated 22.1.1972, Sri. L.R. Patil, Office Suptd. & P.S. to Vice-Chancellor, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga has been relieved from the duties on 4th Feb,’93 to accept another appointment as Assistant Registrar in G.U. Gulbarga Vide T.O. Notification No. referred to above (1).
Further, the contents of this order shall be noted in the Service Book concerned.
REGISTRAR
Pursuant thereto, the appellant joined on the post of Assistant Registrar in the respondent-University.”
5. Meanwhile, Mr. A. Raghavendra, filed Writ Petition No. 5364 of 1993 and challenged the appellant’s appointment on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness. During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent-University vide order dated 03.02.1996, promoted ‘Sri. A. Raghavend
Sitikanatha Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others
Ramlal Khurana (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab & Others
Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Others
State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Sandhya Tomar and Another
Pensionary benefits - If a government servant seeks employment in another unit or department or in another cadre or grade in same department under Rules, his/her lien on original appointment shall be....
The court clarified that a relieving order related to a new appointment does not equate to resignation, thereby preserving the lien on the original post until permanent absorption occurs.
Point of Law : It is very well settled that when a person with a lien against post is appointed substantively to another post, only then he acquires a lien against latter post.
A government servant cannot hold two liens simultaneously; termination of a lien on a permanent post requires acquisition of a lien on another permanent post outside the original cadre.
An employee cannot claim the right to retain his lien under his old employer once he has been selected by a new employer, unless the relevant Rules so provide.
Employment and Service matter - Right to retain his lien on post of Associate Professor - Non Objection certificate issued by respondent - Whether Justified - Respondents are justified in claiming th....
Temporary appointments in autonomous institutions do not confer permanent status or lien, maintaining the original cadre's substantive post as the employee's right.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.