Case: State Of Punjab &amp; Ors Vs. Labhu Ram &amp; Ors

lien.3.12. Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post an d ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post.3.13. Unless his lien is suspended under rule 3.14 or transferred under rule 3.16, a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post-(a) while performing the duties of that post;(b) while on foreign service, or holding a temporary post, or officiating in another post;(c) during joining time on transfer to another post, unless he is transferred substantively to a post on lower pay, in which case his lien is transferred to the new post from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in the old post;(d) except as provided in Note below while on leave; and(e) while under suspension.3.14. (a) A competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, if he is appointed in a substantive capacity:(1) to a tenure post, or(2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. Or(3) provisionally, to a post on which another Government servant would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under rule.(b) A competent authority may, at its option, suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign service, or in circumstances not covered by clause (a) of this rule, is transferred, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, to a post in another cadre, and if in any of these cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent fro m the post on which he holds a lien, for a period of not less than three years.(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or (b) of this rule, a Government servants lien on a tenure post may, in no circumstances, be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post, his lien on the tenure post must be terminated.(d) If a Government servants lien on a post is suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this rule, the post may be filled substantively, and the Government servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it: Provided that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon as the suspended lien revives.(e) A Government servants lien which has been suspended under clause (a) of this rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (1), (2) or (3) of that clause.(f) A Government servants lien which has been suspended under clause (b) of this rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to be on deputation out of India or on foreign service or to hold a post in another cadre: Provided that a suspended lien shall not revive because the Government servant takes leave if there is reason to believe that he will, on return from leave, continue to be on deputation out of India or on foreign service or to hold a post in another cadre and the total period of absence on duty will not fall short of three years or that he will hold substantively a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (1), (2) or (3) of clause (a).3.15. (a) Except as provided in clause (c) of this rule and in note under rule 3.13, a Government servants lien on a post may, in no circumstances, be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post.(b) In a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) rule 3.14 the suspended lien may not, except on the written request of the Government servant concerned, be terminated while the Government servant remains in Government service.(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 3.14(a). the lien of a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post shah be terminated on his appointment substantively to the post of Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department.3.16. Subject to the provisions of rule 3.17, a competent authority may transfer to another permanent post in the same cadre the lien of a Government servant who is not performing the duties of a post to which the lien relates, even if that lien has been suspended."According to the rules set out above, the lien of the petitioners in the junior vernacular cadre was retained by them and it could not be suspended by the mere fact that they were performing the duties of teachers working in the senior vernacular cadre. Nothing beyond this was disclosed by the facts of these cases.The definition of a probationer, given in rule 2.49 is as follows:"2.49. Probationer means a Government servant employed on probation in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a department. This term does not, however, cover a Government servant who holds substantively a permanent post in a cadre and is merely appointed on probation to another post".3. Learned Counsel for the State was unable to substantiate the submission that the petitioners respondents were merely probationers the senior vernacular cadre and not really persons whose substantive posts were in the junior vernacular cadre, appointed to perform the duties of persons put in another cadre. Their duties in the senior cadre involved teaching somewhat higher classes. This additional experience could not reasonably be looked up as a disqualification for the selection grade. The High Court had, therefore, given the petitioner-respondents the benefits of the cadre on which their names should have been retained. Moreover, this is not a question which can arise again as the two different cadres have been merged with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957. It meant that they were entitled to be considered for the selection grade, and, if they satisfy the requirements for selection to get the benefits of it.4.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Learned Counsel for the State was unable to substantiate the submission that the petitioners respondents were merely probationers the senior vernacular cadre and not really persons whose substantive posts were in the junior vernacular cadre, appointed to perform the duties of persons put in another cadre. Their duties in the senior cadre involved teaching somewhat higher classes. This additional experience could not reasonably be looked up as a disqualification for the selection grade. The High Court had, therefore, given the petitioner-respondents the benefits of the cadre on which their names should have been retained. Moreover, this is not a question which can arise again as the two different cadres have been merged with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957. It meant that they were entitled to be considered for the selection grade, and, if they satisfy the requirements for selection to get the benefits of it.