Supreme Court Upholds Lien on Previous Post: L.R. Patil vs. Gulbarga University (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 4 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 796

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can an employee maintain their lien on a previous post while on probation in a new role, especially if the new appointment is later quashed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law dispute between L.R. Patil and Gulbarga University. The core issue revolves around whether an employee’s right to their previous position remains intact when they move to a new role but are not permanently absorbed in it. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of service rules regarding lien and its implications for government employees. The bench consisted of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, with the opinion authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

The appellant, L.R. Patil, was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant at Bangalore University on 10 August 1972. He was later transferred to Gulbarga University on 21 July 1981 and promoted to Assistant Office Superintendent. On 7 August 1987, he was promoted to Office Superintendent, with his probation successfully completed by 8 August 1988. In 1993, Patil applied for and was selected for the post of Assistant Registrar at Gulbarga University, which required a two-year probation period. He was relieved from his position as Office Superintendent on 4 February 1993, to take up the new role as Assistant Registrar. However, his appointment as Assistant Registrar was challenged in a writ petition filed by Mr. A. Raghavendra. The High Court quashed Patil’s appointment on 24 June 1998. Although the High Court’s order was stayed during the pendency of appeals, the appeals were eventually dismissed on 29 September 2000. Consequently, Gulbarga University withdrew Patil’s appointment as Assistant Registrar on 23 December 2000, and reinstated him to his previous post as Office Superintendent.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Mr. A. Raghavendra filed a writ petition challenging L.R. Patil’s appointment as Assistant Registrar, alleging discrimination. The High Court ruled in favor of Raghavendra on 24 June 1998, quashing Patil’s appointment. Both Patil and the University filed appeals, which were dismissed on 29 September 2000. Consequently, the University withdrew Patil’s appointment as Assistant Registrar on 23 December 2000 and reinstated him to his previous post of Office Superintendent. Patil then sought a re-fixation of his seniority and promotion to Assistant Registrar, which was denied by the University on 8 February 2006. Aggrieved, Patil filed a writ petition, which was initially allowed by the Single Judge, who held that Patil had a lien on his previous post. However, this decision was overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (KCS Rules), specifically Rule 252(b) and Rule 20 Note 4, along with an Office Memorandum dated 22 January 1972. Rule 252(b) of the KCS Rules states:

“Registration of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service.”

This rule clarifies that accepting another appointment with permission is not considered a resignation from public service. The Office Memorandum dated 22 January 1972, further clarifies that in such cases, the order accepting the resignation should clearly state that the employee is resigning to join another appointment with proper permission, and that the benefits under Rule 252(b) will be admissible.

Rule 20 Note 4 of the KCS Rules states:

“When a Government servant who has secured employment in one Department of Government under the rules of recruitment, seeks employment on his own accord in another unit or Department or in another cadre or grade in the same Department, his lien on the original appointment shall be continued to be maintained provided he has already been confirmed in the post till he is permanently absorbed in the Department or cadre in which he is newly appointed and he shall be given the benefit of the past service for purposes of leave and pension. If, however, he is temporary in the first appointment, he will cease to have any connection with his old appointment but he shall be given only the benefit of the past service for leave and pension.”

This rule stipulates that if a government servant moves to another department or cadre, their lien on the original post is maintained until they are permanently absorbed in the new position, provided they were confirmed in the original post. They are also entitled to the benefit of past service for leave and pension. These rules and the memorandum form the core of the legal framework considered by the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the order dated 8 April 1993, which relieved him from the post of Office Superintendent, was not a resignation but a permission to take up a new appointment as Assistant Registrar.
• He contended that his past service was protected for pensionary and monetary benefits, and that his lien on the previous post was maintained, as noted in his service book, in accordance with Rule 252(b) of the KCS Rules and the Office Memorandum dated 22 January 1972.
• The appellant emphasized that Rule 20 Note 4 of the KCS Rules protects his lien until he is permanently absorbed on the new post, and since his appointment as Assistant Registrar was never confirmed, his lien on the previous post should continue.
• He argued that the Resolution dated 23 December 2000, which re-appointed him as Office Superintendent, acknowledged the protection of his past service and lien.
• The appellant relied on Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma & Orthopaedics Vs. State of Karnataka and Others and Sitikanatha Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 3 SCC 670 to support his claims.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the appellant’s relieving from the post of Office Superintendent to join as Assistant Registrar should be treated as a resignation under Rule 252(b) of the KCS Rules.
• The respondent contended that the appellant did not make any representation seeking preservation of his lien on the previous post during the pendency of the litigation, and therefore, he lost his right to claim the lien and seniority.
• The respondent maintained that the rejection of the appellant’s representation on 8 February 2006, was in accordance with the law and was rightly upheld by the High Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the order dated 8 April 1993, passed by Gulbarga University, relieving the appellant to accept another appointment as ‘Assistant Registrar’, should be treated as an order accepting ‘resignation’.
2. Whether, on joining the new post, the appellant’s lien on the original/previous post would continue until he was permanently absorbed in the new department or cadre.
3. Whether the relief sought by the appellant to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar in the previous cadre, at par with his juniors, and consequential retirement benefits, can be allowed, and if so, to what extent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules: The Court used this rule to determine that the appellant’s relieving order was not a resignation.
• Office Memorandum No. FD 262 SRS 71 dated 22.1.1972: The Court used this to support its interpretation of Rule 252(b), reinforcing that the relieving order was not a resignation.
• Rule 20 Note 4 of KCS Rules: The Court relied on this rule to conclude that the appellant’s lien on his previous post continued until he was permanently absorbed in the new post.
• Ramlal Khurana (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99: The Court used this case to define the term ‘lien’ as the right of a civil servant to hold their post substantively.
• Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524: This case was used to establish that a lien is acquired only when an employee is confirmed and made permanent on a post.
• State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700: The Court cited this case to emphasize that a lien over a previous post is lost only when an employee is appointed substantively to another post.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Sandhya Tomar and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 357: This case was used to reinforce that lien is a civil right of a civil servant to hold the post to which they are appointed substantively.
• Sitikanatha Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 3 SCC 670: The Court cited this case to reiterate the principle that a government servant’s lien ceases only when appointed substantively on another post.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the service rules and the principle of protecting the rights of a government servant. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s lien on his previous post was maintained because he was never permanently absorbed in the new post of Assistant Registrar. The Court also noted that the relieving order was not a resignation, and the past service of the appellant was protected. The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the need to ensure fairness and justice to the employee, who was caught in a situation not of his own making.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal interpretations (70%) rather than the factual aspects (30%) of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Single Judge’s order with modifications. The Court held that the order dated 8 April 1993, relieving the appellant to take up the new appointment, was not a resignation. The Court also held that the appellant’s lien on the original post of Office Superintendent was maintained and deemed to be continued from 8 April 1993. The Court further held that the appellant was entitled to all service benefits, including seniority, consequential promotions, and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors, though notionally, since he had superannuated. The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Rule 252(b) and Rule 20 Note 4 of the KCS Rules, as well as the principle that a government servant’s lien on a previous post continues until they are permanently absorbed in a new post. The Court emphasized that the appellant was never permanently absorbed or confirmed on the post of Assistant Registrar.

“The lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post.”

“In terms of Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules, it cannot be treated as resignation. The said Rule makes it clear that if another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation of public service.”

“The appellant’ s lien on the original/previous post of ‘Office Superintendent’ shall be maintained and deemed to be continued from the date when he was relieved by respondent-University, i.e., 08.04.1993.”

Key Takeaways

• A government servant’s lien on their previous post continues until they are permanently absorbed in a new post, provided they were confirmed in the previous post.
• Relieving an employee to take up another appointment with proper permission is not considered a resignation from public service.
• Service rules are interpreted to protect the rights of government servants, ensuring that their past service and lien are not jeopardized when they move to a new post on probation.
• This judgment clarifies the interpretation of service rules related to lien and will likely impact future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant will be entitled to all the service benefits including seniority, consequential promotions and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors, though notionally, since he superannuated on 30.06.2007 and has not worked on the promoted post.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a government servant’s lien on their previous post is maintained until they are permanently absorbed in a new post, provided they were confirmed in the previous post and the relieving order is not a resignation. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on lien, as established in previous Supreme Court cases such as Ramlal Khurana, Triveni Shankar Saxena, State of Rajasthan vs. S.N. Tiwari, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sandhya Tomar, and Sitikanatha Mishra. The Court has not introduced any new legal principles but has clarified the application of existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in L.R. Patil vs. Gulbarga University reaffirms the principle that a government servant’s lien on their previous post is protected until they are permanently absorbed in a new role, provided they were confirmed in the previous post and the relieving order is not a resignation. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting service rules to safeguard the rights of government employees, ensuring fairness and justice in their career progression. The judgment provides clarity on the concept of lien and its implications for government employees who move to new positions on probation.