Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SATYA NARAIN PAREEK
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 584 1996 SCALE (3)671
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower
division Clerk in the Technical Education Department. He was
transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. In
the impugned order he was repatriated to the Technical
Education Department. Calling that action in question, the
appellant field the write petition No. 2058/89. The learned
single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990
dismissed the same. On appeal, in Civil Special Appeal
No.215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench. by order
dated May 13, 1994. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Reddy,
the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that in view
of the letter addressed by the Technical Education
Department that his lien was suspended and he could not be
taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien
in the parent department. Therefore, he must be deemed to
have permanently absorbed in Transport Department. We find
no force in the contention.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the state. it is
stated that "Since the petitioner was, admittedly,
temporarily transferred to a tenure post, his lien in parent
department cannot be suspended under 1951 Rules. The claim
of the petitioner that his lien exist in Transport
department is without any basis and Wholly misconceived". In
view of the above specific stand taken by the state and it
is also consistent with the rules that since the appellant
being a permanent employee in Technical Education
Department, during his deputation in the Transport
Department his lien shall always remain in the parent
department. On his repatriation, he goes back to his parent
department, namely, Technical Education Department and he is
entitled to his claims in his own right in that department.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2