TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (11) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b and Haryana High Court. The appellant joined service as Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Department of Punjab Government in 1945. Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh joined as Agricultural Inspector in the said Agricultural Department on different dates between 1950 and 1958. The appellant was confirmed as Agricultural Inspector in 1959. On May 20, 1961 the appellant was appointed against a temporary post of Block Development and Panchayat officer in the Development Department of the State. By order dated October 28, 1966 the appellant was made substantive permanent Block Development and Panchayat officer with effect from April 1, 1964. As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Service Class II Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the 1947 rules) which required appointment being made to the service by promotion by selection on the advice of Haryana Public Service Commission inasmuch as Sharma had been promoted without obtaining the advice of the Commission which head to be taken before the selection for promotion was made, and not after having promoted Sharma, and (ii) in view of the binding earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Labhu Ram & ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1968 S.L.R. 319 it was held that Sharma had on his confirmation as Block Development and Panchayat officer on October 28, 1966 (with effect from April 1, 1964, vide Annexure A) in the Development Department of the Haryana St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment of the single Judge on the second ground, namely, that the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had automatically been terminated. It is the above conclusion of the majority which has been as- . sailed in these two appeals before us. Mr. Phadke on behalf of the appellants has invited our attention to the relevant rules on the subject and has contended that the conclusion of the majority of the learned Judges of the Full Bench that the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had stood terminated is not well-founded. As against that, Mr. Nagaraja has canvassed for the correctness of the above view of the learned Judges of the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment servant holding substantively a permanent post shall be terminated while on refused leave granted after the date of compulsory retirement under rule 8.21; or on his appointment substantively to the post of Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. Note.-In a case covered by rule 3.14(a)(2), where a Government servant is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne, rule 3.15(b) precludes permanently the termination of his suspended lien unless and until a written request to this effect is received from him. The result is that it is possible for such a Government servant to stop his suspended lien being removed from the parent cadre indefinitely and, thus cause i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t belonged: In the circumstances, it was imperative for the competent authority to suspend the lien of the appellant on the permanent post of Agricultural Inspector which he had held substantively. The competent authority, however, failed to suspend the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector. The appellant plainly cannot suffer because of such inaction or omission on the part of the competent authority. A reading of the rule leaves no doubt that a duty is cast upon the competent authority to suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. The imperative nature of the rule is ....