Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2826

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member
Shivani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/876/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Barjesh Mittal
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Shashank Sharma

Confirmed government servant on technical resignation entitled to mandatory lien retention for two years despite no specific request; retrospective confirmation effective for all purposes; cannot be denied citing probation or discretion contrary to DoPT instructions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Fundamental Rules - FR 9(13) - DoPT Master Circular on Lien/Technical Resignation dated 27.08.2018 - DoPT O.M. dated 24.11.2022 - Technical resignation by confirmed government servant - Lien cannot be denied even if not specifically requested in resignation letter - Retrospective deemed confirmation effective from completion of probation period entitles employee to lien retention for two years upon moving to another central government office - Lien defined as right to hold regular post immediately or on termination of absence - Lien retained while holding temporary post or on joining time unless acquiring lien on another permanent post - Termination of lien prohibited if leaving employee without lien on permanent post - Circulars stipulating conditions for NOC issuance are prospective and cannot retrospectively deny vested rights - Administrative discretion cannot override binding executive instructions - Impugned order accepting technical resignation without lien quashed; employee deemed to retain lien with consequential benefits. (Paras 16-28)

(B) Service Law - Confirmation and probation - Deemed confirmation upon completion of prescribed probation period relates back retrospectively for all purposes including entitlement to technical resignation benefits - Subsequent formal order cannot be ignored to deny rights accrued prior to relieving. (Paras 18-19)

Facts of the case:
Nursing Officer appointed on direct recruitment joined service and completed two years on which deemed confirmed retrospectively; obtained NOC through proper channel for recruitment exam in another central institute, submitted technical resignation, relieved as per rules but later technical resignation accepted without lien citing non-confirmation at time of resignation and circular conditions despite retrospective confirmation order; contended entitlement to lien as permanent servant under DoPT instructions applicable to new AIIMS.

Findings of Court:
Employee deemed confirmed w.e.f. date of completing two years service; entitled to lien retention for two years; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to treat applicant as retaining lien with all consequential benefits.

Issues: Whether confirmed employee on technical resignation entitled to mandatory lien retention despite no specific request and subsequent circular; effect of retrospective confirmation on status at time of relieving; applicability of DoPT instructions overriding administrative circulars and discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: Retrospective confirmation treats employee as permanent from that date for all purposes entitling to lien which cannot be terminated without acquiring lien elsewhere or on grounds of no request; DoPT Master Circular prohibits denial of lien to confirmed servants on technical resignation; instructions binding absent overriding rules.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of appointment, resignation, and lien denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. applicant's claim to retrospective confirmation and lien entitlement. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. respondents' defense of probation status and discretionary lien. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court accepts retrospective confirmation prior to resignation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. dopt master circular mandates lien for confirmed employees. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. dopt instructions binding; discretion cannot override. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. impugned order quashed; lien granted with benefits. (Para 28)

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

i) The impugned Office Order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) accepting Technical Resignation without Lien and Circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) be quashed / set aside.

iii) A direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent AIIMS, Bathinda authorities to re-consider the case of the applicant for acceptance of her Technical Resignation with Lien as per DoPT OM (A-8) keeping in view the fact that she already stood deemed confirmed (A-10) prior to submission of technical resignation on 09.01.2024 and consequently, to allow her to rejoin respondent AIIMS Bathinda as per her seniority position on 09.01.2024 with all admissible consequential benefits to which she may be held entitled to viz, seniority, promotion, pay fixation etc. forthwith in the interest of justice.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, being SC category, pursuant to advertisement for the post of Nursing Officer (Sister Grade-II) in AIIMS Bathinda, on being selected, was offered appointment vide order dated 02.05.2020 (Annexure A-3) and joined her duties on 29.05.2021. As per the offer of appointment, the probation period was two years. However, vide office order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure A-4), the probation period of the entire batch of Nursing Officers Grade-II was extended en bloc upto 30.06.2024.

3. The AIIMS, New Delhi issued advertisement for Nursing Officers Recruitment Common Eligibility Test (NORCET-5). The applicant sought No Objection Certificate from respondent No.2 for appearing in NORCET- 5 and the same was granted alongwith other candidates. After qualifying the written examination, the applicant again sought NOC/Experience Certificate for document verification and vide communication dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure A-5), respondent No.3 issued NOC clearly stipulating that in the event of her selection, she would be relieved as per rules.

4. The applicant was offered appointment as Nursing Officer at AIIMS New Delhi vide office order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure A-6), wherein her name appeared at Serial No.77 in UR category. Thereafter, she submitted technical resignation on 09.01.2024 and respondent No.3 vide office order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7) relieved her w.e.f. 09.01.2024 (A/N). An experience certificate dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7) certified that she had worked from 29.05.2021 to 09.01.2024 was also issued.

5. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued Circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) regarding issuance of NOC to apply outside AIIMS Bathinda, stipulating condition that in cases, where NOC is sought within six months upto two years or till confirmation, technical benefits would not be granted. Para 2 of the circular provided that after confirmation, employees would get all benefits as per OM dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure A-8).

6. The applicant submitted representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure A-9) seeking grant of technical resignation with lien. Vide office order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-10), she was deemed confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 upon successful completion of probation. However, vide impugned office order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1), her technical resignation dated 09.01.2024 was accepted without lie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2826

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSuresh Kumar Batra, Judicial MemberShivani – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.060/876/2025

Confirmed government servant on technical resignation entitled to mandatory lien retention for two years despite no specific request; retrospective confirmation effective for all purposes; cannot be denied citing probation or discretion contrary to DoPT instructions.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member
Shivani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/876/2025