JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through Annexure P-1, appended with CWP No.2464 of 2019, respondent No.1 was appointed, as, a Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services. It is also not controverted amongst the contesting litigants that subsequent thereto, through Annexure P-3, he became confirmed against the afore post. However, during the currency of his service, as, Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, he sought leave to participate in the apposite recruitment process, as became initiated, for the advertised post of Assistant District Attorney, under the Government of Haryana. In pursuance to the afore leave being asked for by respondent No.1, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted, through, Annexure P-2, the afore sought for permission to him. A perusal of Annexure P-4 underscores that respondent No.1 was selected against the advertised post of Assistant District Attorney, in the prosecution department of the Government of Haryana, and, the offer of appointment made to him, became accepted by respondent No.1, leading the latter to tender through Annexure P-5, a technical resignation from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services. His technical resignation was accepted through Annexure P-6. However, subsequent thereto, through Annexure P-8, the respondent endeavoured to rejoin, his previous service, as, Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, and, wherefrom he had tendered his technical resignation, technical resignation whereof, became accepted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The afore endeavour of the respondent, became recommended to be accepted by a Special Committee, comprising of Judges of the High Court of H.P., and, whereafter it also became accepted through a resolution made by the Full Court. However, deterimental to the respondent, rather condition as embodied therein, and, comprised in the factum of his proposal, for rejoining, his previous services, as, Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, being acceptable, subject to his not getting any benefit of his past service, inclusive of seniority, does obviously, bring grievance, to the respondent, (i) whereupon, he became constrained to institute CWP No.2464 of 2019, (ii) canvassing therein, relief(s) for setting aside the afore alluded unreasonable condition imposed, upon him, as, a pre requisite, for his endeavour for rejoining service(s) as Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, hence being accepted.

2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, through a verdict made on 29th September, 2020, accepted the afore prayer, and, set aside, Annexure P-9, as well as, letter dated 22.08.2019, Annexure P- 10, and, thereafter directed the appellant herein to consider, in consonance, with the Master Circular, borne in Annexure P-13, the claim and request of respondent No.1 herein, (a) qua the previous services rendered by him, as, Civil Judge (Junior Division), in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, hence in a substantive capacity being not scored off in its entirety, for the purpose of seniority.

3. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved, by the afore verdict made upon CWP No.2464 of 2019, by the learned Single Judge of this Court and it, for seeking annulment thereof, has proceeded to institute the extant LPA, before this Court.

4. Tritely put, the entire lis is hinged upon, the connotation(s) acquired by the Fundamental Rules 13 and 14, Rules whereof become extracted hereinafter:-

“(13) Lien means the title of a Government servant to hold on regular basis, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed on regular basis and on which he is not on probation;

Provided that the title to hold a regular post shall be subject to condition that the junior most pe