- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 29 March 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal dismissed.
Headnote
Se1vice Law :
Lien of pemwnent employee in parent depa1tment-Tec/mical Educa-lion Depmtmenr of State Govemment of Rajasthan-Pemwnent Lower Division Clerk-Transfer on deputation to a tenure post in Transpmt Depmt-ment-Order of repafliation to parent dep01tment challenged on the ground that lien in parent dep01tment had been suspended-Held, appellant being a pennanent enzployee in Technical Education Deparlnzent, diuing his deputa-tion in TranJpo1t Departnzent his lien shall always re1nain in parent depan-me11t-011 repat1iatio11 employee goes to parent depmtment and is entitled to clabns in his ow!l right in that depa1t111ent.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department. He was transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. In the impugned order he was repatriated to the Technical Education Department. Calling that action in question, _ _., the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990 dismissed the same. On appeal, in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated May 13,1994. Thus this appeal hy special leave.
The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the lemned senior counsel for the appellant is that in vie\V or the letter a<ldrcssc<l by the Technical Education Department -~hat his lien was suspended and he could not be taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien in the parent deparln1cnt. Therefore, he must be <leeme<l to have pcrm<:tnently absorhed in Transport Departtnent. We find no force in the contention.
In the counter-affidavit liled by the State, it is stated that "Since the petitioner was, admittedly, temporarily transferred to a tenure post, his lien in parent department cannot be suspended under 1951 Rules. The claim of the petitioner that his lien exist in Transport department is without any basis and wholly misconceived". Jn view of the above specific stand taken by the State and it is also consistent with the rules that since the appellant being a permanent employee in Technical Education Department, during his deputation in the Transport Department his lien shall always remain in the parent department. On his repatriation, he goes back to his parent department, namely, Technical Education Department and he is entitled to his claims in his own right in that department.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 1996.
y From the Judgment and Order date 13.5.94 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 215 of 1990.
Appearances
K.M. Reddy, A.D.N. Rao, T.C. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma for the Appellants.
Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.