1. Appointment to ex-cadre post — Reversion to parent department — Challenge to competency of compulsory retirement on basis of continuing lien. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1989 Supreme(Online)(SC) 31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1985 1989 SCR (3) 680
1989 SCC (4) 99 JT 1989 (3) 430
1989 SCALE (2)326
Civil Appeal No. 2941 of 1982
PETITIONER:
RAM LAL KHURANA (DEAD) BY LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
P.A. Chaudhary, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi and B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants.
C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents.
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
RANGNATHAN, S.
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1989
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.A. Chaudhary, K. Sarada Devi, B. Kanta Rao
For the Respondents: C.M. Nayyar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.A. Chaudhary, K. Sarada Devi, B. Kanta Rao
For the Respondents: C.M. Nayyar
A government servant cannot hold two simultaneous liens across different cadres. Upon acquiring a substantive appointment in a new cadre, the lien in the parent department disappears, especially if the employee asserts their right to the new post and rejects repatriation.
Headnote:(A) Service Jurisprudence - Concept of Lien - A government servant cannot simultaneously hold two liens against two posts in two different cadres. When a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, the lien against the previous post automatically disappears. (Para 13)
(B) Service Rules - Suspension of Lien - Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Service Rules, which allows for the suspension of lien for those appointed to permanent posts outside their cadre, is intended for the benefit of employees wishing to return to their parent department and cannot be invoked by an employee who actively opposes repatriation and asserts a right to remain in the ex-cadre post. (Para 11)
(C) Administrative Law - Competency of Authority - Once a civil court decrees that an employee holds a substantive appointment in a new department, the lien in the parent department is cancelled, making the head of the new department the competent authority for administrative actions including compulsory retirement. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether the appellant retained a lien in his parent Police Department after a civil court declared his appointment in the Excise Department as substantive, thereby challenging the competency of the Excise Commissioner to retire him compulsorily.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
civil service
-
lien
- suspension of lien
- extinguishment of lien
- compulsory retirement
- reversion and repatriation (Para 3)
-
lien
-
civil service
-
practice and procedure
-
civil litigation
- decree
- writ jurisdiction (Para 1)
-
civil litigation
-
statutory interpretation
-
rules of service
-
punjab civil services rules
- rule 3.14
- rule 3.1(a) and (b)
-
punjab civil services rules
-
rules of service
Table of Contents
ACT:
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Punjab Civil Service Rules; Vol.I, Part I. Rule 3.14 .---Lien of government servant---Suspension of lien---When and in what circumstances.
Words & Phrases. "Lien"---Meaning of.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, while working in the Police Department as a clerk, was selected, and subsequently appointed, an Excise Sub-Inspector. After several years, he was reverted and sent back to his parent department. He challenged the reversion order before the Sub-Judge, who allowed him to continue in his substantive appointment as Excise Sub-Inspector. After a decade, he was compulsorily retired by the Excise Commissioner. The appellant moved the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the said order and contending that the Excise Commissioner was not competent to revert him since he belonged to the Police Department where his lien continued. The High Court rejected the writ petition.
This appeal by special leave is against the said decision of the High Court. It was contended that the lien cannot be terminated when the appellant had a substantive post in the Police Department, and that the lien was not extinguished by his appointment to a post outside the parent department.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: 1. Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Service Rules provides that a competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant when he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. This rule cannot be operated to the prejudice of a Government servant who has acquired a lien against an ex-cadre post. Indeed, the rule is for the benefit of a Government servant who intends to return back to his parent department. But the appellant never wanted to return back to his parent department. He was stoutly opposing his right to remain in the ex-cadre post. He has thus denined himself of the benefit of that rule. [683F-H]
T.C. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh & Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 7 16: referred to.
2. Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. It is a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence that no Government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different cadres. [684A-B]
3. In the instant case, the civil court has already ruled that the appellant had a right to continue in his substantive appointment as Excise Sub-Inspector. It was with that declaration when the Excise Department repatriated him to his parent department. After obtaining that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not turn round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent department. The lien in the parent department must be held to have been cancelled consequent on the decree of the civil court. Therefore, the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent authority to pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service. [689C-D]
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to the pensionary benefits of the appellant and pay the same to his legal heirs within three months, if not already paid.]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2941 of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.82 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 1120 of 1981.
P.A. Chaudhary, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi and B. Kanta Rao for the Appellants.
C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and sustained the order of his compulsory retirement--
In March 1949, the appellant entered into service as a clerk in the Police Department. When he was working in the office of the
