S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution, has sought for a quashing order against the respondents letters dated 3. 1. 2003 and 6/11-5-2005 and a direction that his lien in the post of financial Controller and Secretary with the first respondent (hereafter called "dttdc") be continued.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Financial Controller and Secretary with the dttdc in 1991. His services were governed by Staff Service Rules, in respect of various issues, and as regards conditions of the service not provided for, those applicable to employees of the Central Government governed his employment. On 5. 9. 2000, he was selected by the Public Services Enterprises Board for the post of Managing Director, Hotel Corporation of India (hereafter called ?the corporation?) for five years. On 7. 9. 2000, he wrote to the DTTDC requesting that he be allowed to retain his lien for a period of his appointment as managing Director of the Corporation. The releiving order, issued on 7. 9. 2002, inter alia read as follows:"sh. R. C. Aggarwal, Financial Controller and Secretary has also informed that his lien on the post of Financial Controller and Secretary will be as per rules. This order is issued with the approval of the Managing Director and Chief executive ( DTTDC )"

( 3 ) BY the first impugned order dated 3. 1. 2003, the DTTDC communicated that upon the petitioner tendering his technical resignation in the post of finacial Controller and Secretary and expiry of lien, of two years, the competent authority had terminated his lien w. e. f. 7. 9. 2002.

( 4 ) THE petitioner alleges that he neither submitted any resignation nor did the relieving order dated 7. 9. 2002 contain any mention in this regard. He claims that sometime in March 2005, he became aware, for the first time that his lien in the DTTDC had been terminated w. e. f. 7. 9. 2002, through the order dated 3. 1. 2003. He requested by letter dated 3. 3. 2005 to the Managing Director, dttdc that the order dated 3. 1. 2003 be suitably modified taking into consideration the policy decision of the Government, which permitted retention of lien for a period of five years. In that letter, the petitioner placed reliance upon an office memorandum dated 13. 1. 1999 issued by the Department of public Enterprises. The memorandum of 1999 had modified existing circulars and indicated the maximum period for which retention of lien could be permitted. The relevant portion of the office memorandum dated 13. 1. 1999 reads as follows:"2. In modification of the above, the Government has decided that the maximum period for which retention of lien to be permitted in the case of below board level employees of Public Sector Enterprises on their selection and appointment to board level posts in the same or any other Central Public enterprises will be 5 years. 3. All the Administrative Ministries/departments are, therefore, requested to advise the PSEs under their administrative control to comply with the above decision of the Government. "

( 5 ) THE petitioner relies upon the formal Presidential Order in respect of his appointment to the Corporation which contaimed the terms and conditions of service. Clause (1) enumerated various entitlements and clause (2) stated that in respect of other terms and conditions not covered in paragraph (1) he was to be governed by the rules of the PSU.

( 6 ) THE petitioner, therefore, alleges that the stand of the respondent in denying him lien in DTTDC on the one hand and treating his lien has having expired after two years i. e. w. e. f. 7. 9. 2002 is illegal and arbitrary.

( 7 ) THE DTTDC in its return has alleged concealment of facts and on the part of the petitioner it has placed reliance on the letter dated 11. 3. 2003 written by him where his understanding that lien stood expired/terminated on 7. 9. 2002 is clearly brought forth. It is alleged that by this letter he even sought for transfer of his terminal be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document