A civil servant loses their lien on a post upon permanent absorption in another post, thus not entitled to continuity of service or gratuity for the intervening period.

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):

This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1476/2020 which was disposed of on 07.10.2020 with a direction to the respondents to decide representations dated 26.03.2018 and 09.10.2018 of the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order. The said representations were rejected vide impugned order dated 19.02.2021.

2. Now, the instant OA has been filed by the applicant Ms. Anita Bimal Under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

"8. a. Quash and set aside Order dated 19/02/2021 issued by Respondent No.2;

b. Direct respondent No.2-ITDC to consider period spent by the applicant in President's Secretariat as period spent in continuity in service and grant all consequential thereof: benefits;

c. Direct respondent No.2 to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-towards gratuity with interest;

d. Grant Leave Encashment on the basis of continuity of service claimed by the applicant in prayer (b) with interest;

e. Fix the pay of the applicant as if she had been in continuous service of respondent No.2 Organisation and calculate her retiral benefits on that basis with interest;

f. pass any other relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider fit in the interest of justice."

3. The conspectus of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant joined Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) as Management Trainee in 1986. Subsequently, she went on deputation to the President’s Secretariat on 04.02.2013 and she was treated as on Reverse Foreign Service from her parent office. Later, she was absorbed there as Additional Comptroller on 16.06.2016. However, on 26.03.2018, she approached her department by way of a representation seeking permission to rejoin her parent department subject to protection of her pay, perquisites, seniority, entitlements along with continuity of her service.

4. Learned counsel argued that pursuant to the representation of the applicant, the Ministry of Tourism (respondent no. 1) in consultation with the DoPT decided to treat the case of the applicant as ‘deemed lien’ as less than two years had been passed after absorption of the applicant in the President’s Secretariat and return to the ITDC. Respondent no. 1 further requested respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the applicant and to allow her repatriation which was ignored by respondent no. 2. Later, on 01/06/2018, respondent no.2 allowed repatriation of the applicant and consequently on 07.06.2018, she joined back her parent department i.e., ITDC and subsequently, she superannuated from the post of Deputy General Manager on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020 from ITDC. Pursuant to this, she received gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) by treating her as if she had resigned from respondent no. 2 on 16.06.2016. Had she been deemed to have been continued till her date of superannuation, she would have been entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as gratuity w.e.f. 29.03.2018. According to the learned counsel, the respondents had wrongly calculated the retiral dues of the applicant. He added that the representation of the applicant was rejected by the respondent no. 2 by taking a stand that since the applicant resigned from her post in ITDC and her later rejoining ITDC was treated as re-employment. However, the excess payment made to her were ordered not to be recovered. Learned counsel also stated that as the applicant was on deputation to President’s Secretariat and was later absorbed there and then again was allowed to be repatriated to her parent department, she should have been allowed continuance of lien in her parent department. Moreover, she was permitted to join on the same terms and conditions as of she had never been on deputation. Her pay in her parent department was also fixed by ignoring her period of deputation/absorption in the President’s Secretari