Holding

Service rendered in another cadre during the period of lien suspension does not count as experience in the ministerial cadre, and the lien revives only upon reversion, rendering the petitioners ineligible for promotion.

Summary

The Punjab Excise & Taxation Department had two cadres, Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers (Class III‑A) and Excise & Taxation Officers (Class II), each with promotion quotas. After reorganisation the Class III‑A cadre was abolished and a draft amendment to Rule 5 of the Class II Rules was applied, allowing promotion of Taxation/Excise Inspectors with five years’ experience and of ministerial staff. Petitioners, originally clerks, were transferred to the Inspector cadre, their lien in the ministerial cadre being suspended under Rule 3.14(b), and served 14‑15 years there. They challenged the promotion of respondents (Ram Saran and O.P. Singhla) on the ground that, owing to seniority and the suspended lien, they should have been considered first. The Supreme Court held that while the lien remains suspended, the employee’s service in another cadre cannot be counted as experience in the parent ministerial cadre; the lien revives only upon reversion, making the petitioners ineligible for promotion. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed and the appeals allowed.

Issues considered

Whether service rendered by a government employee in another cadre, while his lien is suspended, can be treated as experience in the parent ministerial cadre for promotion under the amended Rule 5.
Whether a draft amendment to a service rule, not yet formally promulgated, can be deemed to have been validly applied for promotion purposes.
Whether the lien of a suspended employee revives only upon reversion to the parent cadre.

Subjects

service promotionlien suspensioncadre reorganisationPunjab Excise & Taxation DepartmentRule 5eligibility criteriaseniorityadministrative law

Judgment

RAM SARAN AND ANR. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 22, 1991

[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMY AND B
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]

'"""-- --~ · Service and Labour Law: Punjab Excise and Taxation Department
(State Service Class III-A) Rules, 1956/Punjab Excise and Taxation
Department (State Service Class II) Rules-Rule 57 Punjab Excise Sub-

-
. )...-'
ordinate Service Rules, 1943-Rule 7(a)(ii).

Rule 5-Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service
Class-II) Rules-Promotion of ministerial staff cadre as Excise and
~--...(' Taxation Officers-Abolition of cadre of Assistant Excise and Taxation
C

Officers eligibility requirement for Excise/Taxation Inspectors 5 years
minimum experience as such-Employees on deputation/transfer or D
holding post in. different cadre not entitled to claim service in that cadre
to be treated experience in the ministerial cadre.

In the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department there were two
separate cadres known as "Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers"
k governed under the State Service Class III-A Rules, 1956 and "Excise E
& Taxation Officers" governed by the State Service Class II Rules.
Under the class II Rules, appointments were made in the ratio of (a)

- 50% by direct recruitment and (b) 50% by promotion from amongst
Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. Likewise under the Class ID-A
Rules 50% of the vacancies were filled by direct recruitment and 50% by
promotion from the subordinate ~taff comprising the Taxation F
,i_ Inspectors, Excise Inspectors, Ministrial Staff Head Office and Ministe-
/ - rial Staff Sub-office who within themselves bad shares as laid down.

The Writ Petitioners and the contesting respondent11-Ram Saran
and O.P. Singhla had initially joined the Punjab Excise and Taxation
Department as clerks and were confmned as such. The Petitioners were G
promoted and appointed as Excise /faxation Inspectors by transfer
under Rule 7(a)(ii) of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules,
1943 and their lien in the taxation department suspended under Rule
3.14(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Whereas Ram Saran and ,
O.P.·Singhla continued in the ministerial cadre and were Assistant and
Superintendant respectively at the relevant time. H

729
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

Following reorganisation of the department, the cadre of --y-
·•
A Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers was abolished and all the Assistant
Excise & Taxation Officers were redesignated as Excise and Taxation
Officers. Consequently Class III-A Rules became redundant. As under
Class II Rules there was no provision for promotion of subordinate staff
direct as Excise & Taxation Officers the Government in order to pro-
B vide avenues of promotion to the ministerial cadre including Taxation
Inspectors and Excise Inspectors brought in ·suitable amendments to _~---
these Rules on the following terms.

"Rule 5. The members of the service shall be recruited in the

c
following manner namely:

(a) xxx xxx
...
......._ .

(b). In the case of an Excise and Taxation Officer;

(i) by promotion from amongst the Taxation Inspectors and
D Excise Inspectors who have an experience of working as such for· a
minimum period of five years; or

(ii) by promotion from amongst the Superintendents, Assistant,
Accountants and Senior Scale Stenographers working in the Excise and
Taxation Commissioners Head Office and in the Divisional and District
E Offices of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab."

Applying the draft amended Rules before they were formally
promulgated the contesting respondents Ram Saran and O.P. Singbla
were promoted as Excise & Taxation Officers on 22.8.1983. The Writ
-
Petitioners who had been transfreed earlier to other cadres of Excise/
F Taxation Inspectors and worked there for 14/15 years beyond the pro-
bation period were not considered. They therefore, filed writ petitions
in the High Court challenging the promotion of the appellants mainly
on the ground that on the basis of their seniority and lien in the ministe-
rial cadre, they had a right to be considered for promotion prior to the
appellants.
G
The appellants and the State contended that if the Petitioners ,;
wanted to be considered for this post on the basis of their lien in the \
ministerial cadre, they may seek reversion to this cadre and thereafter
their case would be considered on merits in accordance with the eligibi-
lity as prescribed under the amended Rule 5-which includes experi-
H ence of working as such for a period of five years in the ministerial .
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 731
I

~ · cadre. To this the reply of the Writ Petitioners was that if the service . A
rendered by them in the other cadre as Excise and Taxation Inspectors
was not considered as service rendered in the ministerial cadre, they
would be ineligible for consideration to this post. The learned single
judge accepted the petitioners' contention and in allowing the Writ
Petitions held that there was no conscious decision to apply the draft
rules and consequently the Petitioners were entitled to be considered for
' .J.._; the post of Excise & Taxation Officers without any bar of eligibility as
.._. ' their juniors had already been considered. On appeal, the Division
Bench took the view that the draft rules, though not promulgated were
rightly implemented. However on the question whether service rende-

... red by the Petitioners on transfer to the other cadres could be con-
sidered as having been rendered in the Ministerial cadre, the Division c
Bench relying on the decision of this court in State of Mysore & Anr. v.
P.N. Nanfundiah & Anr., [1969} 3 SCC 633, held that it did and that if
· ~,, that is counted the petitioners would be eligible for promotion under the
relevant rules with their suspended lien reviving with effect from the
date it had been suspended and they shall be considered forthwith. D
Against this order Ram Saran and O.P. Singhla have preferred appeak
by special leave and so bas the State separately. Reversing the decision
of the High Court and allowing the appeals dismissing the writ peti-
tions, this Court, ·

HELD: From the scheme of the Rules and the method of recruitment
E
it is clear that the petitioners while working as Inspectors on appoint-
ment by transfer to that cadre bad the advantage of being considered

- for promotion as Officers under the amended Rule 5 out of the quota for
Inspectors, while the ministerial staff to the exclusion of the Inspectors
were entitled to certain percentage. [739EJ
F
,-..-.
' The petitioners without being on tbe ministerial cadre even by
reversion could not claim promotion as a member of the ministerial
cadre without revival of the lien. Such revival could be effected only on
reversion and not while the lien remained suspended. [739FJ

If the Government employee was on deputation or holding a post
G
in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the
post in another cadre. There is no revival of the lien during the period
the employee continues to hold a post in another cadre. Therefore,
during the period the suspension is operative, the employee cannot
claim that he had been continuing in the post in the parent cadre and
gaining experience. [740G] H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

When the rule is clear and specific that for the purpose of promo.-
A tion from the cadre of Suprintendents, Assistants, Accountants, Senior
Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers, the
eligibility qualification is 'experience of working' as such' for five
years, the employee is not entitled to claim the experience in the
ex-cadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre. [740H-741A]
B
State of Mysore & Anr. v. P.N. Nanjundian & Anr., (1969] 3
sec 633, distinguished.
C. Narasinga Rao & Ors. v• ..,,ate of Andhra Pradesh by its

c
Secretary, Vol. 2 1968 S.L.R, 644 relied upon.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
945-47of1991.
·-..
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1990 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in L.P .A. Nos. 266, 267 and 268 of 1986.
D
P.P. Rao, J. Lal, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, S.K. Bagga and C.M.
Nayar for the Appellants.

G.L. Singhi, J.K. Sibal and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Res- ~.
pondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Special leave granted.

These Civil Appeals arise from the common judgment dated
-
F 8.8.1990 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Letters
Patent Appeals against the judgment dated 12.2.1986 of the single
.T udge allowing writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.
14471-73 of 1990 are filed by the State of Punjab and Civil Appeals
arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 14236-38 of 1990 are filed by Ram Saran
G and O.P. Singhla, the respondents in the writ petitions. We shall
hereinafter refer the contesting respondents Ram Saran and O.P.
Singhla as 'the app,ellants' and writ petitioners as 'the petitioners' for
the sake of convenience.

In the Punjab Excise & Taxation Department, there were two
H separate and distinct cadres known as Assistant Excise and Taxation .
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHIMA BEEVI, J.) 733

~Officers governed under the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department
A
(State Service Class III-A) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
'Class Ill/A Rules') and the Excise and Taxation Officers governed by
the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service Class II)
Rules. Under the Class II Rules, appointment to the cadre of Excise
and Taxation Officers was made (a) by direct recruitment to the extent
of 50% and (b) by promotion from amongst Assistant Excise and B
--~xation Officers to the extent of 50%. Under Class III-A Rules,
subordinate staff was eligible for promotion to the extent of 50% of
the vacancies of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers and their
shares were as under:

- .;-

r
(i) Taxation Inspector
(ii) Excise Inspector
25%
12 1/2%
-~ (iii) Ministerial Staff Head Office 6 1/4%
(iv) Ministerial Staff Sub-Office 6 1/4%

The appellants as well as the writ petitioners joined the ministe- D
rial cadre of the Excise and Taxation Department as Clerks and were
confirmed as such. The writ petitioners were promoted to the higher
post and later appointed as Excise/Taxation Inspectors in 1971-72 by
~ransfers under Rule 7(a)(ii) of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service
Rules, 1943. On such transfer as Excise/Taxation Inspectors, the lien E
of the writ petitioners was suspended in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 3.14(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume I Part-I).
The appellants continued in the ministerial cadre, Ram Saran as
Assistant and O.P. Singhla as Superintendent.

, The Excise and Taxation Department was reorganised on 18th ·
. .~May, 1977. The cadre of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers was F
abolished on 18th May, 1977 and the Assistant Excise and Taxation
Officers were redesignated as Excise and Taxation Officers. There-
after Class III-A Rules became redundant and inoperative and under
Class II Rules, there was no provision for promotion from subordinate
staff direct as Excise and Taxation Officers.
G
.,Y The Government in order to provide avenues of promotion to
the subordinate staff decided to make suitable amendment to the Class
II Rules o!l the following terms:

"Rule 5. The members of the service shall be recruited in H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R \

the following manner, namely:
A
a. xxx xxx xxx

b. In the ::ase of an Excise and Taxation Officer;
B
(i) by promotion from amongst· the Taxation Inspectors
and Excise Inspectors who have an experience of working , _.--l.~_ ,...-
as such for a minimum period of five years; or

(ii) by promotion from amongst the Superintendents,
c Assistant, Accountants and Senior Scale Stenographers
working in the Excise and Taxation Commissioners Head
Office and in the Divisional and District Offices of the
·-
Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab,"

It was further provided that there will be certain quota for each
D of the above categories for promotion to the rank of Excise and Taxa-
tion Officers. The State Government decided to adopt and apply the
draft provision of Rule 5 in the matter of filling up of the vacancies in
the cadre of Excise/Taxation Officers before rules could be formally
promulgated. Thus on 22.8.1983, Ram Saran and O.P. Singhla were
promoted as Excise/Taxation Officers. The writ petitioners having --~
E been transferred to the other cadres of Excise/Taxation Inspectors
have continued there for 14/15 years beyond the period of probation
and also qualified the departmental test for Inspectors and they were
not considered for the promotion as· Excise and Taxation Officers. The
writ p~titions were, therefore, filed challenging the promotion of the
appellant mainly on the ground that on· the basis of their seniority and
F li~n on the post in the ministerial cadre, the writ petitioners had a right
to be considered for promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation
Officers prior to the appellants.

The contention of the appellants as well as the State was that
though the lien of the writ petitioners in the ministerial cadre was
G suspended in terms of Rule 3.14(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules,
if the petitioners wanted that they should be considered for the post of
Excise and Taxation Officers on the basis of their lien in the ministerial ~\
cadre, they may seek reversion and thereafter their case would be
considered on merits and under rules. It was clarified by the Financial
Commissioner in the order dated 7.8.1985 that the case of the writ
H petitioners would be considered in the light of the eligibility under the
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 735

~ relevant rule, that is to say, the amended Rule 5. The eligibility pre-
scribed under the said rule for promotion from amongst Superinten- A
dents etc. in the ministerial service includes experience of working as
such for a period of five years. The writ petitioners felt that if the
service rendered by them as Excise and Taxation Inspecto:rs was not
being considered as service rendered in the ministerial cadre, they
would be ineligible for consideration to the post of Excise and Taxa- B
~ /'~--- ti on Officers.

The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the writ
petitioners that there was no conscious decision to apply the draft rules

- ;...-. and consequently for the post of Excise and T~xation Officer, the writ
petitioners are entitled to be considered without any bar of eligibility
as their juniors had already been considered for !he post. On appeal, c
/ the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the draft rules
-~ though not promulgated were rightly implemented. The Division
Bench dealt with the question whether the service rendered on trans-
fer to the ex-cadre would be available to the writ petitioners in the
matter of their promotion to the higher posts thus: D

"In view of this, question that calls for determination is as
to whether on the return of the writ petitioners from the
k post of Excise and Taxation Inspectors to the Ministerial
cadre, the service rendered by them on the post of Excise
and Taxation Inspector could by deeming fiction be con- E
sidered as having been rendered in the Ministerial cadre?
- The answer to this question is that such a service is to be
counted as if the petitioners were always in the Ministerial
cadre. Once it is held that the petitioners' lien was only
suspended under Rule. 3. 14(b) of the Pun jab Civil Service
~- Rules, the petitioners had a right to come back to their F
posts in the Ministerial cadre and once that is so, the rest
would follow as if for all times deemingly they were in the
Ministerial cadre."

The Division Bench relied on the decision of this Court in State
of Mysore & Anr. v. P.N. Nanjundiah & Anr., [1969] 3 SCC 633, and G
'?-· opined that the entire service rendered by the petitioners as Excise and
Taxation Inspectors will be considered in the Ministerial cadre and if
that is counted the petitioners would be eligible for promotion under
the relevant rules. It rejected the contention that the petitioners could
not be said to be retaining a lien in the Ministerial cadre as they had
successfully completed the period of probation as Excise and Taxation H'
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

Inspectors and they will be deemed to be confirmed there. The Divi~ ~
·A
sion Bench endorsed the view that the revival of the lien essentially
means that it stands revived with effect from the date it had been
suspended, and dismissed the appeals observing:

" ... we may observe· that the petitioners shall now be con-
B sidered forthwith for the posts of ETOs from the date their
juniors were promoted and if found suitable they will be__;......__ __
promoted to that rank from the dates their juniors were
promoted and they would be entitled to all the consequen-
tial benefits arising out of their promotion from the said

c
G .L.
date."

Shri P .P. Rao, the Senior Counsel for the appellants, and Shri
Sanghi, the Senior Counsel for the respondents (writ petitio-
-
ners), conceded that both parties claim promotion to the post of Excise "y ~
and Taxation Officers only by virtue of the provision in the amended
Rule 5 of Class II Rules and, therefore, the question whether there
D had been conscious application of the said rule before promulgation is
only academic. We agree with the view of the High Court that for the
purpose of present controversy we have to assume that the amended
Rules were rightly implemented before they were formally promul-
gated in effecting the promotions now challenged. ~

E The appellants maintain that the Division Bench as clearly
wrong, and that the petitioners in order to claim the benefit of promo-
tion from the ministerial cadre under the amended Rules have neces-
sarily to satisfy the eligibility test. To be more specific, they should
have actual experience of five years in the ministerial cadre even when
they are reverted back to that cadre .
. F
We have said that the petitioners were appointed as Inspectors
by transfer under Rule 7 of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service
Rules, 1943 and thereafter they belonged to a different cadre. Their
lien had also been suspended after three yea~s.

G The Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume, I, Part I, Rule 3.14
rea~: -~

"3.14. (a) A competent authority shall suspend the lien of
a Government employee on a permanent post which he
holds substantively; if he is appointed in a substantive
H capacity-
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHIMA BEEVI, J.) 737

( 1) to a tenure post, or
A
(2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is
borne, or

(3) provisionally, to a post on which another Government
employee would hold a lien, had his lien not been sus- B
pended under this rule.

(b) A competent authority may, at its option, sus-
pend the lien of a Government employee 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, c
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 absendrom the post on which he
holds a lien, for a period of not less than three years.
D
(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) If a Government employee's lien on a post is
suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this rule, the post may
be filled substantively, and the Government employees
appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it: E
Provided that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon as

- the-Suspended lien revives.

Note l. xxx xxx xxx

Note. 2.-When a post is filled substantively under this F
t-- clause, the appointment will be termed "a provisional
appointment"; the Government employee appointed will
hold a provisional lien on the post; and that lien will be
liable to suspension under clause (a) but not under clause
(b) of this rule.
G
xxx xxx xxx
..... ~
(e)

(f) A Government employee's lien which has been
suspended under clause (b) of this rule shall revive as soon
as the ceased to be on deputation out of India or on foreign
service or to hold a post in another cadre ... " H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

According to the appellants; the respondents having been trans- ~
A ferred to the cadre of Excise and Taxation Inspectors and having con-
tinued there for 14/15 years beyond the period of probation, their lien
over ministerial post was suspended. The consideration of their names
for the purpose of promotion as Excise and Taxation Officers from the
ministerial post did not arise. The amended Rule introduced eligibility
B that would exclude the service rendered by the petitioners in other
posts and if such service is excluded, the petitioners would be ineligi- ~ __
ble. The lien of the petitioners had been suspended by the competenr · -·
authority under the mandatory provisions of Rule 3.14(b) referred to.
':::'hey could seek reversion to their parent ministerial cadre and claim
consideration for promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Offi-
cers according to their eligibility and suitability. The next below rule
c does not apply to the case of promotion to the higher posts in other
cadres under specific rules governing promotions to those cadres.

The recruitment to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer is
governed by Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service
D Class II) Rules, 1956. The eligibility of Taxation Inspectors and Excise
Inspectors and members of ministerial establishment for the post is
governed by the amended Rule 5. According to the proposed Rule
5(b )(ii), promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer is to be
made from amongst the Superintendents, Assistants, Accountants and J
Senior Scale Stenographers working in the Excise and Taxation Cbm- ~
E missioners Head Office and in the District and Divisional Offices. In
view of this provision, the Taxation Inspectors and Excise Inspectors
whose lien against their posts in the ministerial cadres has been
suspended and' who are not working on the eligible ministerial
establishment posts and who have been working as Taxation Inspec-
-
tors and Excise Inspectors for a long number of years cannot claim that
F they are to be considered automatically for recruitment to the post of ----"""'
Excise and Taxation Officer. The normal line of promotion within the
cadre for the members of the ministerial establishment was from the
lowest post of a Clerk to the highest post of a Superintendent. So also
the further channel of promotion was open to the Inspectors to the
post of Excise and Taxation Officer. If the Inspectors are to be con-
G sidered for the post of Excise and Taxation Officer from the quota of
the ministerial establishment, that will result in the Inspectors getting J'
two avenues for promotion while the ministerial staff losing even the \
one which had been provided.

The appointment to the ex-cadre posts of Excise and Taxation
H Inspector is made by transfer in accordance with the provisions of Rule
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 739
'-y-
' 7 of Subordinate Service Rules, 1943 which provide that appointment
A
to the cadre post shall be made by transfer or deputation of an official
already in Government service. It implies that any Government emp-
loyee irrespective of his office can be appointed as Excise or Taxation
Inspector. The Excise and Taxation Inspectors' cadre is distinctly dif-
ferent from the ministerial c~dre having duties or functions altogether
different in nature and content. Instead of waiting for their turn to be B
- -,.~romoted from the Inspectors. quota, the petitioners have laid the
claim to the quota in the ministerial service. The appellants are also
persons who have been confirmed in the ministerial cadre and have
worked for more than 20 years as such. The result would be that there

- _.__. would be no promotions to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer
from the ministerial staff as such, and those who got transferred as
Inspectors would be getting double benefit by claiming promotion to C
the post of Excise and Taxation Officer as members of the ministerial
~ staff while retaining their right to claim promotion from within the
quota specifically provided for the Inspectors. The petitioners with
suspended lien on the post of Clerk and continuously holding the
, Inspector's post for over 13 years cannot be considered to be at par D
with officials continuously working on the ministerial post for over 21
years.

~ From the scheme of the Rules and the method of recruitment, it
is clear that the petitioners while working as Inspectors on appoint-
ment by transfer to that cadre had the advantage of being considered E
for promotion as Officers under the amended Rule 5 out of the quota
for Inspectors, while the ministerial staff to the exclusion of the
, Inspectors were entitled to certain percentage. The petitioners without
being on the ministerial cadre even by reversion could not claim pro-
motion as a member of the ministerial cadre without revival of the
f.--. lien. Such revival could be effected only on reversion and not while the F
lien remained suspended. When the rule requires members of the
ministerial staff to have experience as such for five years to satisfy the
eligbility requirement, the Inspectors cannot claim that service in the
different cadre with thier lien suspended should be equated to service
in the ministerial cadre and treated as experience in the ministerial
cadre even if the functions and duties of the Inspectors may be of G
)--- identical nature. The purpose of the rule is to provide promotional
avenues to different categories within specified limits. The benefit
intended for one category cannot be extended to another category by
stretching the rules, particularly when no injustice would result. The
argument that the petitioners if found ineligible would remain in the
'· lower -~a.dre-while !!!eir juniors are being promoted to the higher cadre H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

cannot be countenanced. Even when the juniors continued in the ~
A
lower ministerial cadre for long years, the petitioners were in a diffe-
rent cadre which had a larger promotional avenue anq they are
satisfied in that post. If the petitioners did not exercise their option to
revert back to the ministerial cadre at the right time to qualify
themselves for further promotion, the appellants cannot be deprived
B of the benefit they derived by continuing in the lower cadre on account
of that situation. The High Court was clearly wrong in holding that the~.,-
petitioners ha,ve acquired eligibility by rendering service in the cadre
of Inspectors since their lien had been suspended.

The decision in State of Mysore's case (supra) is distinguishable --.....,.;.
on facts. Rule 53(b)(i) of the Mysore Service Rules considered in that
c case provided that service in another post whether in a substantive or
officiating capacity shall count for increments in the time scale applic-
able to the post on which the Government servant holds a lien or as ').--· '
well as in the time scale applicable to the post, if any, on which he
would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended. The Court noticed
D that the service of an officer on deputation to another department is
treated as equivalent to the service in the parent department under the
rule. On account of that equation between the service in the two
departments, it was held that the service on deputation should be
deemed to be rendered in the parent department. The ratio of the --{
decision is, therefore, not applicable in the present case.
E
In C. Narasinga Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh by its
Secretary, Vol. 2 1968 S.L.R. 644, Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh State
and Subordinate Service Rules provided that service rendered in the
transferred department should be deemed to have been rendered in
the parent department for promotion and seniority. And when the rule
F is thus specific, it was held that the petitioners' service in the police ---A
department should be deemed to have been rendered in the parent
department entitling them to promotion.

If the Government employee was on deputation or holding a post
in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the
G post in another cadre. There is no revival of the lien during the period ."'
the employee continues to hold a post in another cadre. Therefore, ,,
during the period the suspension is operative, the empl<>yee cannot """"<
claim that he had been continuing in the post in the parent cadre and
gaining experience. When the rule is clear and specific that for the
purpose of promotion from the cadre of Superintendents, Assistants,
H Accountants, Senior Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and
RAM SARAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB[FATHlMA BEEVI, J.] 741

---y· Taxation Officers, the eligibility qualification is 'experience of working A,
'as such' for five years' the employee is not entitled to claim the experi-
enc~ in the ex-cadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre.

In the light of what has been stated above, we are unable to
uphold the decision of the High Court. The writ petitions are liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, we allow the appeals . B

• - ,,,.;.._......_R.N.J. Appeals allowed.

-