Case: T. R. Sharma Vs. Prithvi Singh &amp; Anr. Etc

The appellant joined service as Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Department of Punjab Government in 1945. Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh joined as Agricultural Inspector in the said Agricultural Department on different dates between 1950 and 1958. The appellant was confirmed as Agricultural Inspector in 1959. On May 20, 1961 the appellant was appointed against a temporary post of Block Development and Panchayat officer in the Development Department of the State. By order dated October 28, 1966 the appellant was made substantive permanent Block Development and Panchayat officer withApril 1, 1964. As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as Teja Singh, Bhale Ram an d Prithvi Singh were allocated to the State of Haryana. On February 26, 1969 the Governor of Haryana passed an order deconfirming the appellant on his request from the post of Block Development and Panchayat officer with effect from that date. On March 20, 1969 the Governor of Haryana passed the impugned order which reads as under:"The Governor of Haryana is pleased to promote temporarily Shri Tuhi Ram Sharma, Agricultural Inspector, now working as Block Development and Panchayat officer as District Agricultural officer in H.A.S. Class IT subject to the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission and to post him at Rohtak in place of Shri Narain Singh who is transferred t o Narnaul as District Agricultural officer, Shri Prithvi Singh who is working against the post of District Agricultural officer, Narnaul is reverted to the post of Agricultural Inspector being the junior-most.The character roll file of Shri Tuhi Ram in two parts is sent herewith. Its receipt may please be acknowledged."Two writ petitions were filed praying the quashing of the above order. one petition was filed by Prithvi Singh respondent and the other was filed by Bhale Ram and Teja Singh respondents. Learned single Judge (Tuli J.) as per judgment dated January 30, 1970 allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order on the following two grounds:"(i) the impugned promotion had been made in violation of the mandatory requirements of rule 7 of the Haryana Agricultural Service Class II Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the 1 947 rules) which required appointment being made to the service by promotion by selection on the advice of Haryana Public Ser vice Commission inasmuch as Sharma had been promoted with out obtaining the advice of the Commission which head to be taken before the selection for promotion was made, and not after having promoted Sharma, and(ii) in view of the binding earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Labhu Ram &ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1968 S.L.R. 319 it was held that Sharma had on his confirmation as Block Development and Panchayat officer on October 28, 1966 (with effect from April 1, 1964, vide Annexure A) in the Development Department of the Haryana State, ceased to be a member of the Haryana Agricultural Service from which post alone he could have been promoted to the post in question, and his lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector automatically stood terminated under Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I, Part I."It was also observed by learned single Judge that but for the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Labhu Ram &Ors. v. State of Punjab, he would have been inclined to hold in favour of Sharma appellant on the second point mentioned above. Four Letters Patent appeals were filed against the judgment of the single Judge. Two of those appeals were by Sharma appellant, while the other two w ere filed by the State of Haryana. When the appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Judges referred the matter to the Full Bench. In the meantime, on March 5, 1970 the Governor of Haryana in consuitation with the Haryana Public Service Commission promoted Sharma appellant as District Agricultural officer in Class II on regular basis and posted him as such with effect from April 1, 1969. All the learned Judges constituting the Full Bench held that the first ground on which the impugned order had been quashed, namely, non-procuring of the advance advice of the Haryana Public Service Commission was not well founded. It was also observed that the earlier case of Labhu Ram was clearly distinguishable- and had no bearing. By a majority of two to one the Full Bench upheld the judgment of the single Judge on the second ground, namely, that the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had automatically been terminated.It is the above conclusion of the majority which has been as sailed in these two appeals before us.

Court's reasoning:
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention of Mr.of the above rule shows that normally a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. The opening words of the above rule, however, show that it would apply unless it be otherwise provided in the rules. Rule 3.14(a)(2) carves out an exception to the general rule contained in rule 3.12. According to rule 3.14(a)(2), 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 to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. When the appellant was appointed was Block Development and Panchayat officer in a substantive permanent capacity, his case squarely fell within the ambit of rule 3.14(a)(2) as the post of Block Development and Panchayat officer was outside the cadre of Agricultural Inspectors to which the appellant belonged: In the circumstances, it was imperative for the competent authority to suspend the lien of the appellant on the permanent post of Agricultural Inspector which he had held substantively. The competent authority, however, failed to suspend the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspect or. The appellant plainly cannot suffer because of such inaction or omission on the part of the competent authority. A reading of the rule leaves no doubt that a duty is cast upon the competent authority to suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. The imperative nature of the rule is also clear from the use of the word " shall" in clause (a) as against the use of the word "may" in clause (b) of that rule. The appellant, in our opinion, cannot be penalised because of the omission of the competent authority to it in accordance with the mandatory provisions of rule 3.14 (a)(2). Clause (b) of rule 3.15 also makes it clear that in a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of rule 3.14, the suspended lien of the Government servant concerned may not, except on the written request of that Government servant, be terminated while he remains in Government service. The note to rule 3.15 shows a way out in case any difficulty is experienced on account of the operation of rule 3.14(a) (2). It is nobodys case that any written request was made by the appellant for terminating his suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector. As such, we find it difficult to uphold the finding of the majority of the learned Judges that the. lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had stood terminated. In our opinion, the third Judge who was in the minority took a correct view of the matter when he observed that the Government servant is not to be penalised and cannot be deprived of the safeguards provided by rule 3.14 because of the fact that the competent authority had not taken the necessary steps.As the Governor has deconfirmed the appellant from the post of Block Development and Panchayat officer, the suspended lien of the appellant on the post o f Agricultural Inspector would stand revived with effect from February 26, 1969. The promotion of the appellant in the parent Agricultural Department from the post of Agricultural Inspector to that of District Agricultural officer by the impugned order cannot in the circumstances be held to suffer from any legal infirmity.