Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and two other petitioners challenged the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 10th July 2003, in Original Application No.56 of 2003. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to permit Respondent No.1, Prakash Chandulal Rathod, to resume duty as Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under Secretary. Respondent No.1 was appointed on probation as Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under Secretary on 1st February 1990. His probation was extended for six months due to unsatisfactory work, and he was later appointed to officiate on a long-term basis from 1st August 1992. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court, Mumbai, and he accepted that appointment. The State terminated his services from the post of Assistant Draftsman-cum-Under Secretary, treating him as having ceased to hold a lien on that post. The Tribunal allowed his application, holding that he continued to have a lien on the parent post and should have been repatriated, relying on a similarly placed person who was permitted to retain lien. The High Court, however, held that under Fundamental Rules 14 and 17, a government servant loses lien on a post when he accepts an appointment in a different service or cadre. Since Respondent No.1 was a probationer and had accepted the appointment as Labour Court Judge without any provision for retaining lien, his lien on the parent post ceased. The Court further held that a probationer does not have a right to lien, and the termination of his services was valid. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and dismissed the Original Application.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Lien - Cessation of Lien - Fundamental Rules 14 and 17 - The issue was whether a probationer who accepted appointment as a Labour Court Judge retained a lien on his parent post. The Court held that under Fundamental Rule 17, a lien is lost when a government servant accepts an appointment in a different cadre or service, and a probationer does not have a right to lien. The termination of the probationer from the parent post was valid as he had accepted a new appointment without retaining lien. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Probation - Termination of Probation - Fundamental Rules - The Court considered whether a probationer could be terminated from service upon accepting a new appointment. It held that a probationer's services can be terminated in accordance with the terms of appointment, and acceptance of a new post without lien amounts to voluntary abandonment of the parent post. The Tribunal's order directing repatriation was set aside. (Paras 2-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a probationer who accepts appointment as a Labour Court Judge is entitled to retain lien on his parent post and be repatriated upon termination of the new appointment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 10th July 2003, and dismissed Original Application No.56 of 2003.
Law Points
- Lien ceases on acceptance of new appointment
- Probationer not entitled to lien
- Fundamental Rules 14 and 17 govern lien
- Repatriation not applicable to probationers
- Termination of probation valid
