Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a service law matter concerning repatriation and lien. The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department of the State of Rajasthan. He was subsequently transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. By the impugned order, he was repatriated to the Technical Education Department, which action he challenged before the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 16 July 1990. On appeal, the Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90 confirmed the dismissal by order dated 13 May 1994. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The only controversy raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant was that in view of a letter addressed by the Technical Education Department stating that his lien was suspended and he could not be taken back into service, the appellant had lost his lien in the parent department and must be deemed to have been permanently absorbed in the Transport Department. The State in its counter-affidavit stated that the petitioner was admittedly temporarily transferred to a tenure post and his lien in the parent department could not be suspended under 1951 Rules. The State further stated that the claim of the petitioner that his lien existed in the Transport Department was without any basis and wholly misconceived. The Supreme Court accepted the State's stand and found it consistent with the rules: since the appellant was a permanent employee in the Technical Education Department, during his deputation in the Transport Department his lien would always remain in the parent department. On repatriation, he would go back to his parent department and would be entitled to his claims in his own right in that department. The Court held that there was no force in the appellant's contention and dismissed the appeal with no costs. The final holding affirmed that a permanent employee's lien remains in the parent department during deputation and that temporary transfer to a tenure post does not suspend lien under the 1951 Rules.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Lien and Deputation - Lien Remains in Parent Department During Deputation; Temporary Transfer to Tenure Post Does Not Suspend Lien - 1951 Rules - The appellant, a permanent Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department, was deputed to the Transport Department and later repatriated; he claimed permanent absorption on the ground that his lien in the parent department had been suspended and he could not be taken back. The State contended that the appellant was temporarily transferred to a tenure post and his lien in the parent department could not be suspended under 1951 Rules, and that his claim of lien in the Transport Department was without basis. The Supreme Court held that a permanent employee's lien always remains in the parent department during deputation, and on repatriation he goes back to the parent department with all rights. The appeal was dismissed with no costs. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's lien in the parent department stood suspended or terminated during his deputation to the Transport Department, thereby entitling him to permanent absorption in the Transport Department, and whether the repatriation order was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no costs. It held that the appellant, being a permanent employee in the Technical Education Department, during deputation in the Transport Department his lien always remained in the parent department, and on repatriation he went back to the parent department with all rights. The claim of permanent absorption in the Transport Department was rejected.
Law Points
- Lien remains in parent department during deputation
- temporary transfer to tenure post does not suspend lien under 1951 Rules
- repatriation to parent department is valid
- permanent employee retains lien in parent department.
