The present petition has been preferred for challenging the orders/communications/letters issued by the respondents, which are at Annexure 2 dated 11 th April, 2003, Annexure 4 dated 61h May, 2003, Annexure-10 dated 7th May, 2004, Annexure-11 dated 6th July 2004 and Annexure-16 dated 5th December, 2005, whereby, the present petitioner was denied the benefit of continuation of services for the period running from 20th February, 2003 to 7th May, 2003. Against this decision of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner and thereby the petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of attached pay allowances and such other service benefits for the aforesaid period.

2. The main issue raised in this petition is as under:-

"What is the meaning of the term 'dies-non' and under what circumstances the period of service of an employee can be treated 'dies-non' period?"

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Chief General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Limited and, thereafter, he was appointed as Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited, which was the tenure post i.e. for the particular period only. Thereafter, time and again tenure of the present petitioner as a Director (Personnel) was extended and he was transferred at Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner was appointed as Director (Personnel) on 27th May, 1997 and again the tenure of the present petitioner was extended time to time and ultimately the tenure of the present petitioner was brought to an end with effect from 19th February, 2003 as a Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited and, thereafter, he was also not allowed to join his original post of Chief General Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited.

4. Aggrieved with the same, the present petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing WP (8) No. 1036 of 2003, which was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 8th• April, 2003 (Annexure 1), wherein, it has been held by this Court in paragraphs 21,22, 23 and 26 as under:

"21. Now, the question that consequently arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would be entitled to continue on the post which he was holding prior to his appointment on lion a tenure post.

22. It is well known that lien, in service law connotes the right of a public servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. Existence of such lien and the incidents thereof are dependent on the service rules or terms and conditions by which public servant is governed. Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the later post and lien against his previous post automatically disappears. But if the rules provides to the contrary, a public servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post during the period provided in the rule. There are circumstances where the lien of a government servant is suspended on a permanent post which he holds substantively on his appointment on a tenure post in a substantive capacity.

23. Admittedly before appointment as Director (Personnel) in Western Coalfields Limited on substantive post the petitioner was holding a substantive post of Chief General Manager in Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. There is no dispute that all these Central Coalfields Ltd., Western Coalfields Ltd., Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. are the subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd. Both in the capacity of Chief General Manager and Director (Personnel), petitioner was in the service of the Coal India Ltd. There is nothing in the letter of appointment or in the terms and conditions annexed therewith which expressly provides that after the expiry of the period of five years, petitioner shall cease to be the employee of the subsidiary company of Coal India Ltd. In the impugned orde