Facts
The applicant, Shivani, a Nursing Officer at AIIMS Bathinda, joined on May 29, 2021, pursuant to an appointment offer dated May 2, 2020
Source reference: para. 2Her probation period was initially two years, but was extended en bloc for her batch until June 30, 2024, by an office order dated July 5, 2023
Source reference: para. 2She sought and was granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from AIIMS Bathinda to appear for NORCET-5 for AIIMS New Delhi
Source reference: para. 3After selection, she was offered an appointment at AIIMS New Delhi on November 30, 2023
Source reference: para. 4She submitted her technical resignation on January 9, 2024, and was relieved on the same date
Source reference: para. 4On May 8, 2025, she was deemed confirmed retrospectively from May 29, 2023, upon successful completion of probation
Source reference: para. 6However, her technical resignation was accepted without lien via an office order dated July 12, 2025
Source reference: para. 6She filed representations seeking technical resignation with lien, citing her deemed confirmation and DoPT OMs, but received no response
Source reference: para. 6, 7The respondents, AIIMS Bathinda, argued that she was under extended probation at the time of resignation and relieving, and her confirmation order was issued much later
Source reference: para. 10They also contended that the request for lien was not in her resignation letter and that lien is discretionary
Source reference: para. 10, 11The applicant further highlighted a Ministry of Health and Family Welfare communication dated November 25, 2025, clarifying that DoPT instructions, including the OM dated November 24, 2022, regarding lien and pay protection, apply to all new AIIMS institutions
Source reference: para. 13Issues
Whether the respondents were justified in accepting the applicant's technical resignation without retaining lien in the parent department, despite her confirmed status and the binding DoPT instructions governing lien and technical resignation
Source reference: para. 17Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Master Circular on Lien/Technical Resignation issued by the Department of Personnel & Training via O.M. dated August 27, 2018
Source reference: para. 20It defines 'lien' in FR-9(13) as the right of a Government employee to hold a regular post and clarifies that this benefit is enjoyed by confirmed employees or those who have completed probation
Source reference: para. 21Paragraph 17 of this circular mandates retention of lien for a permanent Government servant appointed in another Central Government Department/Office, for a period of two years (extendable to three), and distinguishes this from temporary Government servants who sever connections without lien retention
Source reference: para. 23Paragraph 18 categorically stipulates that a Government servant's lien on a permanent post may not be terminated, even with consent, if it leaves him without a permanent post, and explicitly states it is incorrect to deny lien on the plea that it was not specifically requested in the technical resignation
Source reference: para. 24The court also noted the applicability of DoPT O.M. dated November 24, 2022, and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare communication dated November 25, 2025, which reinforces that DoPT rules/instructions on technical resignation, including lien and pay protection, apply to all new AIIMS
Source reference: para. 16, 25Reasoning
The court reasoned that the applicant was a confirmed employee because her confirmation was retrospectively deemed effective from May 29, 2023, by an office order dated May 8, 2025
Source reference: para. 18, 19Therefore, her status as a confirmed employee on the date of her relieving (January 9, 2024) could not be denied
Source reference: para. 18The respondents' argument that she was on extended probation at the time of relieving was deemed devoid of merit due to this retrospective confirmation
Source reference: para. 19Applying Paragraph 14 of the DoPT Master Circular, the court established that confirmed employees are entitled to the benefit of lien
Source reference: para. 21Paragraph 18 of the Master Circular directly contradicted the respondents' contention that a specific request for lien was required in the resignation letter, stating it is incorrect to deny lien on this ground
Source reference: para. 24The communication from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare further solidified that DoPT instructions on technical resignation and lien are binding on AIIMS
Source reference: para. 25The court rejected the argument that lien was discretionary, asserting that administrative discretion cannot override clear executive instructions
Source reference: para. 26Finally, the claim that the post was filled or vacancies reduced was dismissed as immaterial, as administrative inconvenience cannot defeat a vested right flowing from statutory rules
Source reference: para. 27Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant was a confirmed/permanent Government servant on the date of acceptance of her technical resignation and was entitled to retention of lien in the parent department for a period of two years
Accordingly, the impugned office order dated July 12, 2025, to the extent it denied retention of lien, was quashed and set aside
Source reference: para. 28The respondents were directed to treat the applicant as having retained lien in AIIMS Bathinda in terms of the DoPT Master Circular dated August 27, 2018, and related O.M.s for the prescribed period, with all consequential benefits
Source reference: para. 28The Original Application was allowed
Source reference: para. 28Original Court PDF
O.A. No. 060/876/2025 (Shivani v. Union of India) [p.1]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in