Holding

A substantive appointment in another cadre extinguishes the earlier lien, and Rule 3.14 cannot prejudice a servant who has acquired a legal right to the ex‑cadre post, making the Excise Commissioner competent to retire the appellant.

Summary

R.L. Khurana, originally a clerk in the Punjab Police, was appointed as an Excise Sub‑Inspector and later reverted to his parent department. He obtained a decree from a civil court confirming his right to continue in the substantive Excise post, overturning the reversion. Subsequently, the Excise Commissioner retired him compulsorily under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. Khurana challenged the order, arguing that his lien to the Police post remained and that the Excise Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, relying on Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The Supreme Court held that a substantive appointment in another cadre automatically extinguishes the earlier lien, and that Rule 3.14 cannot be used to prejudice a servant who has acquired a legal right to the ex‑cadre post. Consequently, the Excise Commissioner was competent to retire him and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also directed the State to determine and pay the appellant’s pensionary benefits to his legal heirs.

Issues considered

Whether the lien to the parent Police department persisted after the appellant held a substantive post in the Excise department.
Whether Rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules suspends the lien in the circumstances alleged.
Whether the Excise Commissioner had the competence to order compulsory retirement of the appellant.

Legislation cited

Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. I) Part Is. Rule 3.14
Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975s. Rule 3(1)(a), s. Rule 3(1)(b)

Subjects

liencivil servicesubstantive appointmentexcise sub‑inspectorcompulsory retirementRule 3.14Punjab Civil Service Rulesservice jurisprudencecompetence of authority

Judgment

RAMLAL KHURANA (DEAD} BY LRS.
A .),.-
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

AUGUST 3, 1989

B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.]
y
Punjab Civil Service Rules: Vol. I, Part I. Rule 3. 14-Lien of
government servant-Suspension of lien-When and 111 what circums-
tances.

c
Words' & Phrases: "Lien"-Meaning of. -; ~.

The appellant, while working in the Police Department as a clerk,
~
was selected, and subsequently appointed, as Excise Sub-Inspector.
After several years, he was reverted and sent back to his parent depart-
l)lent. He challenged the reversion order before the Sob-Judge, who
D allowed him to continue in the Excise Department, where he was hold-
ing a substantive post. After a decade, he was compulsorily retired by
the Excise Commissioner. The appellant moved the High Court by way
of a writ petition challenging the said order and contending that the
Excise Commissioner W8'! not competent to pass the order as the appel-
lant belonged to the Police Department where his lien continued. The )-.
E High Court rejected the writ petition.

This appeal by special leave is against the said decision of the High
Court. It was contended that the lien against origiaal post in the l'olice
Department could not vanish even though the appellant was holding a
substantive post in the Excise Department.

-~
F
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD: I. Rule 3.14 or the Pwtjab Service Rules provides that a
competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant
when he is apj>Ointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post
G outside the cadre on which he is borne. This rule cannot be operated to
the prejudice of a Government servant who on his own has acquired
legal right to an ex-cadre post. Indeed, the rule is for the benefit of a x.·
Government servant who intends to return back to his parent depart-
ment. But the appellant never wanted to return back to his parent
department. He was stoutly opposing repatriation and asserting his
H right to remain in the ex-cadre post. He has thus denied himself of the
benefit or that rule. [683F-H]
680
R.L. KHURANA ,._ STATE OF PUNJAB 68 l

T.C. Sharma v. Prirhvi Singh & Ors .. [1976] 2 SCR 716; referred A
to.

2. Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a
civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed.
Generally when a person with a lien against a post is appointed
substantively to another_ post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. B
Then the lien against his previous post automatically disappears. It is
a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence that no Government
, servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two
""'' different cadres. [684A-B]

J. In the instant case, the civil court has already ruled that the C
appellant had a righ to continue in his substantive appointment as
Excise Sub-Inspector. He secured that declaration when the Excise
Department repatriated him to his parent department. After obtaining
that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not turn
round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent
department. The lien in his parent department must be held to have D
been cancelled consequent on the decree of the civil court. Therefore,
the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent authority to
pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service. [689C-D]

[This Court directed the respondent to determine the pensionary
benefits of the appellant and pay the same to his legal heirs within three E
months, if not already paid.]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2941
of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.82 of the Punjab & F
Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 1120 of 1981.

I P.A. Choudhary, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi and B. Kanta Rao for the
'· Appellants.

C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents. G

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] 3 S.C.R.

A High Court of Punjab & Haryana which dismissed the writ petition of
the appellant and sustained the order of his compulsory retirement.

In March 1949, the appellant entered into service as a clerk in the
-.
Police Department. When he was working in the office of Inspector
General of Police, he appeared for selection to the posts of Excise
B Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department of the State. He was selected
and appointed as Excise Sub-Inspector. He continued in the post for a
number of years. In October 1963, he was repatriated to his parent
department. But it was not a simple rejfatriation. The post of Excise
Sub-Inspector was in the higher scale than his original post in the/
Police Department. So he was reverted and sent back to his parent
department.
c
The appellant challenged the reversion and repatriation in O.S.
No. 126 of 1965 before the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class,
Patiala. He sought for a declaration that the order of reversion was
illegal and void. It was an infringement of his legal right to continue as
D Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department.· The learned Subordinate
Judge accepted his claim and decreed the suit. He made some per-
tinent observation.

"The plaintiff continued to hold the post beyond the
prescribed period of probation and his services were not
E dispensed with at the end of two years and he was not
reverted. The plaintiff, in fact, continued to hold the post
for more than 6 years, after the maximum period of proba-
tion had expired. Consequently, the rule laid down in and
on the basis thereof, it is held that the plaintiff must be
taken to have so continued in a substantive capacity. On
F this conclusion, that the plaintiff was in October, 1963,
holding his post substantively, that termination of his ser-
vice necessarily amounted to punishment, and must be
deemed to be removal from service, which of course was
not permissible without a proper enquiry. The conclusion
must, therefore, be that the termination of the plaintiff's
G services was ill~gal."

It is thus clear from the above observation that the Court expres-
sed the view that the appellant was holding a substantive post in the
Excise Department. After completing his probationary period, he was
holding the post of Sub-Inspector in a substantive capacity. So his
H reversion and repatriation amounted to penalty which was illegal since
made without proper enquiry.
R.L. KHURANA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 683

Since repatriation of the appellant was set aside by the Civil A
Court, the appellant was allowed to continue without interruption in
the Excise Department itself. On October 1, 1975, the Excise Commis-
sioner made an order compulsorily retiring him from service. The
order was made under Rule 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Punjab Civil
Services· (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The appellant chal-
lenged the validity of that order before the Higb Court mainly on the B
ground that the Excise Commissioner was not competent to make that
order since he belonged to Police Department. He claimed that his lien
in the Police Department was not removed and, therefore, the Ins-
pector General of Police was alone competent to deal with him. In
support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in T.C. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh & Ors., (1976] 2 SCR 716. The
High Court, however, distinguished that decision and dismissed the C
writ petition. It was held that the appellant had n\)t gone to the Excise
Department on deputation from the Police Department, but he held a
fresh appointment as an Excise Sub-Inspector.

Counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on rule 3.14 of D
the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. I) Part I and also on the decision
in T. C. Sharma case. He urged that the appellant was no doubt hold-
ing a substantive post in the Excise Department, but he had not
acquired a lien against that post, since he was not confirmed in that
post. It was claimed that the lien in the parent department ougbt to
have been suspended so that it could ensure to his benefit as and when E
he wanted to return back to his parent department. The contention, in
other words, proceeded on the premise that the lien against original
post in the Police Department could not vanish even thougb the appel-
lant was holding a substantive post in the Excise Department.

We do not think that the contention urged for the appellant as to F
Rule 3.14 could be accepted. Rule 3.14 provides that a competent
authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servent when he is
) appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the
cadre on which he is borne. It seems to us that this rule cannot be
operated to the prejudice of a Government servant who on his own has
acquired legal right to an ex cadre post. Indeed, the rule is for the G
benefit of a Government servant who intends to return back to his
parent department. That was also the view expressed in T. C. Sharma
case. But then, the appellant never wanted to return back to his parent
department. He was stoutly opposing repatriation and asserting his
right to remain in the ex cadre post. He has thus denied himself of the
benefit of that rule. !-l.
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 3 S.C.R.

A The other contention urged for the appellant that he was not
confirmed in the Excise Department and unless confirmed, he
acqllired no lien cannot also be accepted. Lien is not a word of art. It
just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively
to which he is appointed. Generally when a person with a lien against a
post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien
B against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post auto-
matically disappears. The principle being that no Government servant
9an have simultaneously two liens against two posts in two different
cadres. It is a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence.

In the instant case, the civil court has already ruled that the
C appellant had a right to continue in his substantive appointment as
Excise Sub-Inspector. He secured that declaration when the Excise
Department repatriated him to his parent department. After obtaining
that decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not tum
round and say that he still retained lien against his post in the parent
department. The lien in his parent department must be held to have
D been cancelled consequent on the decree of the Civil Court. There-
fore, the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent autho-
rity to pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service.

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed in the circumstances
of the case, we make no order as to costs.
E
Before parting with the case, we may however add a word more.
It was stated that in view of pendency of the proceedings in this Court
and in the High Court, the pension due to the appellant has not been
finalised. We, therefore, direct the respondent to determine the •
pensionary benefits of the appellant and pay the same to his legal heirs .-{
F within three months, if not already paid.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.