[2023] 12 S.C.R. 104 : 2023 INSC 796
L.R. PATIL
v.
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
(Civil Appeal No. 3254 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI* AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
Issues for consideration: Whether the order passed by the
Respondent-University pursuant to r.252(b), Karnataka Civil Service
Rules, relieving the appellant to accept another appointment ought
to be treated as an order accepting resignation; and further on
facts, whether on joining the new post, the appellant’s lien on the
previous post will be maintained until he is permanently absorbed
in the new department in which he is subsequently appointed; and
lastly is the appellant entitled to the relief prayed.
Service Law – Karnataka Civil Service Rules – r.252(b), r.20,
Note 4 – Lien of a government servant on the previous post,
when ceases to exist:
Held: ‘Lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when
he/she is appointed on another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or
absorbed permanently – Otherwise, his/her lien would continue
on the previous post – In the instant case, lien of the appellant on
the previous post of ‘Office Superintendent’ is squarely protected
and his lien shall be continued u/r.20, Note 4 as he was never
appointed substantively on the new post of ‘Assistant Registrar’
and was continued temporarily on the said post subject to the
outcome of the pending litigation challenging his appointment –
This fact also finds support from the Preamble of the Resolution
of the University dated 23.12.2000 – Further, the appointment of
appellant to the new post was subject to probation of two years
and due to pending litigation, he was continued on a temporary
basis despite completion of two years – Further, in terms of r.252(b)
relieving order cannot be treated as resignation – Thus, the finding
recorded by the Writ Appellate Court not sustainable – Appellant
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
* Author
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 105
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
worked on the promoted post – Impugned order set aside – Order
passed by Single Judge restored subject to modifications. [Paras
17, 18, 20 and 22]
Karnataka Civil Service Rules – r.20, Note 4 – Intention of:
Held: As per r.20, Note 4, if a government servant seeks
employment in another unit or department or in another cadre or
grade in the same department under the Rules, his/her lien on
the original appointment shall be continued to be maintained until
absorbed in the department or cadre in which he/she is newly
appointed. In case the employee is absorbed, he/she shall be
entitled to the benefit of the past service for the purpose of leave
and pension – Intention of the said rule is to protect the past service
of the government servant in cases where the government servant
is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on
account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation
period or for any other reason. [Paras 14 and 19]
Words and Phrases – ‘Lien’ – Discussed – Service Law.
Sitikanatha Mishra v. Union of India and Others, (2015)
3 SCC 670 : [2015] 1 SCR 16; Ramlal Khurana (Dead)
by Lrs. v. State of Punjab & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99
: [1989] 3 SCR 680; Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State
of U.P. and Others, (1992) 1 Supp SCC 524 : [1991]
3 Suppl. SCR 534; State of Rajasthan and Another
v. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700 : [2009]
4 SCR 448; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v.
Sandhya Tomar and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 357 :
[2012] 11 SCR 839 – relied on.
Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma & Orthopaedics v.
State of Karnataka and Others, Writ Appeal No. 596
of 2020 (S-RES) – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3254 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2009 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No.10003 of 2009.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Arjun Basra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sharanagouda Patil, Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Shubham Kunte for M/s.
S-legal Associates, Advs. for the Respondent.
106 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The appellant assails the tenability and validity of the judgment dated
23.10.2009 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka,
Circuit Bench at Gulbarga passed in W.A. No. 10003 of 2009, by
which the order passed by learned Single Judge on 27.08.2008 in
W.P. No. 4066 of 2006 allowing the petition holding that the appellant
had lien over his previous post and directing respondent-University
to pay service and pensionary benefits, was set-aside.
2. In the present case, the short questions of law which fall for
consideration are –
(i) Whether the order dated 08.04.1993 passed by the RespondentGulbarga University pursuant to Rule 252(b) of Karnataka Civil
Service Rules (for short “KCS Rules”), ‘relieving’ the appellant
to accept another appointment as ‘Assistant Registrar’ ought
to be treated as an order accepting ‘resignation’, to take up the
post on new assignment?
(ii) Whether in the facts of the case, on joining the new post, the
appellant’s lien on the original/previous post will be continued
to be maintained, until he is permanently absorbed in the new
department or cadre in which he is subsequently appointed?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief
as prayed by the appellant in the writ petition to consider him for
appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar in the previous/
original cadre at par with his juniors and consequential benefits
on retirement can be allowed? If yes, to what extent?
3. The undisputed facts are that, appellant was appointed on 10.08.1972
as Junior Assistant in Bangalore University. Later, he was transferred
to Gulbarga University on 21.07.1981 and promoted to the post of
‘Assistant Office Superintendent’. Eventually, vide office order dated
07.08.1987, appellant along with one ‘Sri. A. Raghavendra’ and other
serving Assistant Office Superintendents, were promoted to the post
of ‘Office Superintendent’ with immediate effect subject to satisfactory
completion of probation period of 1 year. The University by office order
dated 10.07.1990 declared that appellant had completed his probation
‘satisfactorily’ on 08.08.1988. In terms of the said declaration, the
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 107
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
appellant was w.e.f. 07.08.1987, substantively appointed to the post
of ‘Office Superintendent’.
4. Subsequently, in 1993, the University invited applications for
appointment to the post of ‘Assistant Registrar’ via direct recruitment.
The appellant applied for the said post and was selected. As per
the terms of the appointment, the appellant had to serve as a
probationer for a period of two years, before he could be confirmed
on the said post. On his appointment, respondent-University vide
office order dated 08.04.1993 relieved the appellant from the post
of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 04.02.1993, and duly recorded that
he is being relieved to accept the another appointment as ‘Assistant
Registrar’ in the Gulbarga University. The order further recorded that
its contents shall be noted in the service book. The relevant extracts
of the aforesaid office order dated 08.04.1993 is being reproduced
for ready reference as under –
“No. GUG/ADM-1/92-93/273 Dated:- 8/4/1993
O R D E R
In pursuance with the Rule 252(b) of KSCR’s read with O.A. No. FD
263 SRS 71 dated 22.1.1972, Sri. L.R. Patil, Office Suptd. & P.S. to
Vice-Chancellor, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga has been relieved
from the duties on 4th Feb,’93 to accept another appointment as
Assistant Registrar in G.U. Gulbarga Vide T.O. Notification No.
referred to above (1).
Further, the contents of this order shall be noted in the Service Book
concerned.
REGISTRAR”
Pursuant thereto, the appellant joined on the post of Assistant
Registrar in the respondent-University.
5. Meanwhile, Mr. A. Raghavendra, filed Writ Petition No. 5364 of
1993 and challenged the appellant’s appointment on the ground of
discrimination and arbitrariness. During pendency of the said writ
petition, the respondent-University vide order dated 03.02.1996,
promoted ‘Sri. A. Raghavendra’ and ‘Sri Shankar Rao Kamble’ looking
to their seniority and posted them as Assistant Registrar, Examination
Branch and Assistant Registrar, Administrative Branch respectively.
It is pertinent to mention here that, on account of the pendency of
108 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
aforesaid writ petition, the appellant continued on probation on the
post of Assistant Registrar. Thereafter, the High Court vide order
dated 24.06.1998 allowed Writ Petition No. 5364 of 1993 and
quashed the appointment of the appellant for reasons recorded in
the order. Aggrieved, the appellant and the respondent-University
filed separate Writ Appeals bearing Nos. 3261 of 1998 and 3246
of 1998 respectively, which came to be dismissed on 29.09.2000.
However, the Division Bench pending the admission of writ appeals,
stayed the operation of the order dated 24.06.1998 passed in Writ
Petition No. 5364 of 1993.
6. Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ appeals, the respondentUniversity in compliance of the orders, withdrew the appointment of
the appellant as Assistant Registrar vide office order dated 23.12.2000
(hereinafter referred to as “Resolution”) and retained/placed him
back in his previous post of ‘Office Superintendent’ with immediate
effect. The relevant portion of the Resolution is reproduced as thus:
“PREAMBLE
x x x x
The above matter was placed before the Syndicate meeting held on
14.7.1998 and it was decided to prefer W.A. before the Division Bench
of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the University
filed W.A. No. 3246/98 in the High Court in Addition to the W.A. No.
3261/98 filed by Sri L.R. Patil praying to set aside the order dated
24.6.1998 passed in W.P. 5364/93. The High Court passed an Interim
Order that the operation of the earlier order dated 24.6.1998 passed
in W.P. No. 5364/1993 was stayed pending admission of W.A.
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Court of Karnataka has held in
its order dated 29th Sept. 2000 in both the W.A.s that the learned
Single Judge was right in quashing the order of appointment dated
4.2.1993 in respondent (sic) of Sri L.R. Patil as Assist. Registrar
in Gulbarga University, Gulbarga. There is neither irregularity nor
illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. The above appeals
were dismissed by the High Court.
It is observed that Sri L.R. Patil, has not maintained the lien on
his previous post, i.e., Office Superintendent with the approval of
competent authority as required under General Rules 17 of K.C.S.Rs.”
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 109
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
7. In furtherance to the above said Resolution, the appellant was
retained in the previous post of Office Superintendent with immediate
effect and his fixation in the pay-scale was made accordingly. Soon
thereafter, on joining, the appellant submitted a representation dated
16.01.2001 to the University and sought ‘re-fixation of his seniority’ in
the cadre of Office Superintendent and further requested for promotion
on the vacant post of Assistant Registrar at par with his two juniors
namely ‘Sri. A. Raghavendra’ and ‘Sri. Shankar Rao Kamble’ who
were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar by the respondentUniversity. On getting no response from respondent-University, the
appellant sent reminder letters dated 27.03.2001 and 20.04.2001,
however, neither any reply was given to appellant, nor any action
was taken by respondent-University.
8. Aggrieved by the indolence on the part of the respondent-University,
the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 22838 of 2001, which was disposed
of on 21.03.2005 with a direction to the University to consider the
representations/reminders of appellant and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law within a period of four months affording due
opportunity of hearing to the appellant and other affected employees.
In compliance, respondent-University considered the case of appellant
and rejected his representation on 08.02.2006. In the meantime,
the appellant superannuated on 30.06.2007 from the post of ‘Office
Superintendent’.
9. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4066 of 2006
challenging the rejection order dated 08.02.2006 and prayed for
restoration of his seniority in the cadre of ‘Office Superintendent’ from
the date of his original appointment. The appellant also prayed for
consideration of his case for promotion at par with his juniors w.e.f.
03.02.1996, i.e., the date when they were promoted to the post of
Assistant Registrar.
10. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.08.2008 allowed the
writ petition and relying on the Resolution dated 23.12.2000 observed
that the services of the appellant did not get severed since he was
retained to the original post and maintained the lien in terms of the
Rule 20 Note-4 of KCS Rules. In other words, the learned Single
Judge was of the opinion that there was continuation of service on
the previous post as per said Rule, which states that if a government
servant has secured employment in the same or other Department
110 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
and is subsequently relieved from the previous post to join the new
post, his lien on the previous/original appointment shall be continued
to be maintained till he is ‘permanently absorbed’ in the Department or
cadre in which he is newly appointed. However, regarding promotion,
it was observed by the Single Bench that since the appellant has
already superannuated from service, he may not derive the benefits
of promotion at par with juniors but would be eligible for monetary
benefits including pensionary and service benefits.
11. Challenging the said order dated 27.08.2008, respondent-University
filed Writ Appeal No. 10003 of 2009 and contended that the appellant
did not have a lien over the post of Office Superintendent and ceased
to have any association on the earlier post w.e.f. 04.02.1993 except
to the extent of leave and pension. The writ appeal vide impugned
order was allowed setting aside the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by
learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 4066 of 2006.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in
furtherance to the Office order dated 08.04.1993, the past service of
the appellant was protected for pensionary and monetary benefits,
retaining his lien on the previous post and noted to record the said
contents in his service book in terms of the Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules
and Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1972. It is further contended that
Rule 20 Note 4 of the KCS Rules protects the lien of the appellant
until he is permanently absorbed on the new post. On account
of pending litigation, the appellant continued to be on probation
throughout and he was never confirmed substantively on the post
of Assistant Registrar. Ultimately, his appointment was quashed by
the High Court, whereafter, he was retained on his previous post of
his Office Superintendent. However, it is urged that on his retention
to the previous post, his past service cannot be washed away and
his lien cannot be negated during the vulnerable period in which he
was on probation in the new appointment. In support of the said
contention, the contents of the Resolution dated 23.12.2000 reappointing him as Office Superintendent was relied upon. In support
his submissions, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
judgment dated 25.02.2021 passed by Division Bench of High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 596 of 2020 (S-RES)
titled “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”.
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 111
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
13. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent-Gulbarga
University has submitted that the appellant tendered his resignation
from the post of Office Superintendent to join as ‘Assistant Registrar’
and in pursuance of the same, he was relieved from his duties.
Therefore, in terms of Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules, it is to be treated
as ‘resignation’ from previous employment. It is further submitted
that, in absence of any representation made by the appellant seeking
preservation/maintenance of his lien on the previous post during the
pendency of litigation, he lost his right of lien and claim of seniority.
Therefore, rejection of his representation by respondent-University
on 08.02.2006 was in accordance with law and has been rightly
upheld by impugned judgment while setting aside the order of the
learned Single Judge.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the
nature of issues involved, we deem it appropriate to deal with the
questions as framed simultaneously. As the order dated 08.04.1993
relieving the appellant from the duties of Office Superintendent
was passed in pursuance to Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules and Office
Memorandum dated 22.01.1972, therefore, at the very outset, it is
necessary to refer the said Rule and Office Memorandum which are
reproduced as thus for ready reference –
“Rule 252(b) – Registration (sic ) 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.”
“Office Memorandum No. FD 262 SRS 71 dated 22.1.1972
Under Rule 252(b) of KCSRs, resignation of an appointment to take
up with proper permission another appointment, whether permanent
or temporary service in which counts in full or part, is not resignation
from public service. A question has been raised whether in such cases
a separate sanction should be issued indicating that the resignation
has been accepted under the above provision, in order to enable the
audit/Administrative Officer to regulate the consequential benefits in
the matter of pay fixation, carry forward of leave, pension etc. The
matter has been considered and it has been decided that in cases
of the above type the order accepting the resignation should clearly
indicate that the employee is resigning to join another appointment
112 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
with proper permission and that the benefits under Rule 252(b) ibid
will be admissible to him. The contents of the above order should
also be noted in the Service Book of individuals concerned under
proper attestation. The issue of any separate sanction is considered
not necessary.”
At this juncture, reference to Rule 20 Note 4 of KCS Rules is also relevant
and same is reproduced as under –
“Rule 20 Note 4 – 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.”
On perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that if a government servant
seeks employment in another unit or department or in another cadre
or grade in the same department under the Rules, his/her lien on the
original appointment shall be continued to be maintained until absorbed
in the department or cadre in which he/she is newly appointed. In case
the employee is absorbed, he/she shall be entitled to the benefit of the
past service for the purpose of leave and pension.
15. Coming to the facts in the present case, the appellant vide order
dated 08.04.1993 was appointed by the respondent-University as
Assistant Registrar and the said fact was duly noted in his service
book. His appointment was successfully challenged and resultantly
it was quashed by the High Court. Appeals against the said order
were dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeals, the respondentUniversity vide Resolution dated 23.12.2000 resolved to retain the
appellant back on his previous post i.e., ‘Office Superintendent’.
In this context, the ‘Preamble’ of the Resolution reveals that the
appellant was relieved to take up the new appointment on permanent
post with ‘formal permission’ from the competent authority to avail
the benefit of past service for the purpose of pension and leave as
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 113
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
contemplated under Rule 252(b) KCS Rules. It is also subsequently
noted in the Resolution that during the pendency of appeal against
the order quashing the appellant’s appointment, the Division Bench
of the High Court passed an interim order and stayed the operation
of the order of learned Single Judge quashing the appointment
pending admission of appeal. In the said perspective, it is apparent
that, subject to pending litigation assailing the appellant’s appointment
as Assistant Registrar, he throughout continued to be on the post
of Assistant Registrar as probationer and was never confirmed or
was permanently absorbed on the said post. Be that as it may, if
the appellant was never permanently absorbed or confirmed on the
post of ‘Assistant Registrar’, then as per mandate of Rule 20 Note
4 of KCS Rules, his lien shall continue on the original post of the
Office Superintendent.
16. On the said issue, the law has been well-settled by this Court in the
case of “Ramlal Khurana (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab &
Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99”, wherein this Court observed that ‘lien’ is
not a word of art and it connotes the right of a civil servant to hold
the post substantively to which he is appointed, meaning thereby,
the appointment of government servant on the said post must be
substantive as he/she cannot hold two posts simultaneously in two
different cadres and maintain lien on both of them at the same time.
Further, in the case of “Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P.
and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524”, while primarily dealing
the question of acquisition of lien, this Court has observed that a
person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has
been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier.
17. In a 3-Judge Bench judgment in the case of “State of Rajasthan
and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700”, while
interpreting the word ‘lien’ against the post appointed substantively
with respect to another post, this Court held as thus:
“17. It is very well settled that when a person with a lien against
the post is appointed substantively to another post, only then he
acquires a lien against the latter post. Then and then alone the lien
against the previous post disappears. Lien connotes the right of a
civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed.
The lien of a government employee over the previous post ends if
he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In
114 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent
post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous
permanent post.”
Similarly in the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.
Sandhya Tomar and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 357”, this Court held
that the lien is a civil right of a civil servant to hold the post to which he
is appointed substantively. The relevant part of the order is reproduced
below as thus –
“10. “Lien” connotes the civil right of a government servant to hold
the post “to which he is appointed substantively”. The necessary
corollary to the aforesaid right is that such appointment must be in
accordance with law. A person can be said to have acquired lien
as regards a particular post only when his appointment has been
confirmed, and when he has been made permanent to the said post.
“The word ‘lien’ is a generic term and, standing alone, it includes
lien acquired by way of contract, or by operation of law.” Whether
a person has lien, depends upon whether he has been appointed
in accordance with law, in substantive capacity and whether he has
been made permanent or has been confirmed to the said post.”
All the aforesaid judgments have been duly considered again by this Court
in another 3-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Sitikanatha Mishra
(supra). Thus, as per settled legal position, we observe that ‘lien’ of a
government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on
another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or absorbed permanently. Otherwise,
his/her lien would continue on the previous post.
18. Reverting to the instant case, on a conjoint reading of the Rules
applicable, i.e., Rule 252(b), Rule 20 Note 4 and Office Memorandum
dated 22.01.1972 in consonance with the settled law as discussed,
we are of the considered view that the lien of the appellant on
the previous post of ‘Office Superintendent’ is squarely protected
and his lien shall be continued under Rule 20 Note 4. We say
so particularly because of the fact that the appellant was never
appointed substantively on the new post of ‘Assistant Registrar’ and
was continued temporarily on the said post subject to the outcome
of the pending litigation challenging his appointment. The said
fact also finds support from the Preamble of the Resolution of the
University dated 23.12.2000. Further, the appointment of appellant
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 115
L.R. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA
to the new post was subject to probation of two years and due to
pending litigation, he was continued on a temporary basis despite
completion of two years. Nothing has been brought on record by
respondent-University to negate the applicability of mandate of Rule
20 Note 4 of KCS Rules on appellant.
19. Further, it is not the case of the respondent-University that the
appellant was permanently absorbed or confirmed on the new
post. Conversely, the respondent’s case is that, in absence of any
representation made by the appellant seeking continuation of his
lien on the previous post, he cannot claim it subsequently on being
retained after quashing of his appointment. In our view, the said
stand of the University cannot be countenanced in terms of Rule
20 Note 4 of KCS Rules. As per the language of the said Rule, the
lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected
till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post. The
intention of the said rule is clear, viz., to protect the past service of
the government servant in cases where the government servant is
not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account
of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation period or
for any other reason.
20. So far as question of the ‘relieving order’ being treated as resignation
is concerned, 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.
Thus, the finding as recorded by the Writ Appellate Court are not
sustainable.
21. In view of the discussion made herein above, we answer the questions
framed above as follows –
(i) Order dated 08.04.1993 passed by respondent-University,
relieving the appellant to take up the new appointment as
‘Assistant Registrar’ is not to be treated as resignation in terms
of Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules.
(ii) 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.
116 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
(iii) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order
to do complete justice, 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.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
23.10.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No. 10003 of 2009 (S-RES) is
hereby set-aside. The order dated 27.08.2008 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4066 of 2006 is restored subject
to the above modifications. No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case : Appeal allowed.
