SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Dr. Shiv Kumar S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5145 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Meena
For the Respondent: Dr. Vivek Tyagi

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of 'lien' under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 entitles a government servant to maintain their substantive appointment and rejoin service upon returning from a foreign assignment, thereby ensuring entitlement to all consequential benefits, including retirement benefits.

Headnote:

Lien - Government Servant - Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (Rules 15 to 19) - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to rejoin service after returning from a foreign assignment, emphasizing the concept of 'lien' under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The court held that the petitioner, having maintained his lien on the post of Biologist, was entitled to rejoin service and receive all consequential benefits, including retirement benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Biologist, was selected for a foreign assignment and subsequently sought to rejoin service upon returning. The respondents refused to allow the petitioner to rejoin and did not issue a retirement order despite the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, having maintained his lien on the post of Biologist, was entitled to rejoin service and receive all consequential benefits, including retirement benefits.

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's lien on the post of Biologist survived upon returning from a foreign assignment and whether the petitioner was entitled to rejoin service and receive retirement benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and established that the petitioner, by maintaining his lien on the post of Biologist, was entitled to rejoin service and receive all consequential benefits, including retirement benefits.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to treat the petitioner back in service as a Biologist, issue a formal retirement order, grant all service benefits, and pay arrears within specified timelines.

ORDER :

1. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Biologist after being selected through direct recruitment conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ‘the RPSC’) under the Medical and Health Department and was posted at Bharatpur and later on he was confirmed on the post of Biologist in State service w.e.f. 10.09.1982 vide order dated 25.09.1982.

The petitioner in the meantime was selected as Deputy Assistant Director (Entomology) with National Institute of Communicable Disease, Ministry of Health, Government of India and an order dated 02.10.1982 was issued in regard to his relieving for joining on the post of Deputy Assistant Director (Entomology) keeping his lien with the State Government for one year. In furtherance of the selection and relieving, the petitioner joined on the post of Deputy Assistant Director (Entomology) by maintaining his lien with the Government of Rajasthan.

2. The Office of Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Malaria), Bharatpur on 24.05.1983 issued one No Objection Certificate (for short ‘the NOC’) to the petitioner for taking up a job under the Ministry of Health Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On 16.06.1983, the petitioner intimated the Director (Public Health, Medical and Health Services), Rajasthan about his selection and appointment in the Ministry of Health Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In view of the application submitted by the petitioner, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & A.R. vide letter dated 01.07.1983 intimated to the petitioner that they have no objection in taking up the assignment with the Government of Saudi Arabia if the employer i.e. Government of Rajasthan is agreeable to relieve him for taking up the assignment. In furtherance of the application and NOC issued by the Government of India, the Government of Rajasthan, Medical and Public Health Department issued a NOC on 08.07.1983 stating that the Governor of Rajasthan has no objection if the petitioner joins the foreign assignment as an Entomologist. In the aforesaid NOC dated 08.07.1983 it was also mentioned that the lien of the petitioner will be maintained on the post with the Rajasthan Government. After issuing NOC and the relieving order by the respondents, the petitioner joined in foreign assignment. On 20.01.1988, contract for foreign assignment of the petitioner was renewed. On 09.02.1988, the Embassy of India, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) also wrote a letter to the Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, recommending for extension of deputation period of the petitioner. The period for foreign assignment was extended from time to time and the petitioner was relieved from foreign assignment on 13.09.2009 to join his parent department under the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner after being releived from the foreign assignment, on 23.09.2009 submitted his joining before the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, for assuming the duty on the post of Biologist, which is still lying vacant. Certain representations were also submitted by the petitioner before the respondents authorities, which are part of the record, for allowing him to join on the post of Biologist.

3. Pursuant to the representations submitted by the petitioner, the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan issued a letter dated 02.09.2021 to the petitioner demanding certain information for grant of service and retiral benefits. In response to the letter dated 02.09.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation along with the relevant documents on 21.09.2021, 22.09.2021 and also a notice for demand of justice on 03.03.2022.

4. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition to issue directions to the respondents regarding his retirement from the service from the date of attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2014 treating him to be in service with the respondents- Government of Rajasthan after returning back

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top