# RAMLAL KHURANA (DEAD} BY LRS v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1989] 3 S.C.R. 680
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1989-08-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2941 of 1982
- **Bench:** K. Jagannatha Shetty, A.M. Ahmadi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramlal-khurana-dead-by-lrs-v-state-of-punjab-ors-10536
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Punjab Civil Service Rules: Vol. I, Part I. Rule 3. 14-Lien of
government servant-Suspension of lien-When and 111 what circumstances.
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 departl)lent. He challenged the reversion order before the Sob-Judge, who
allowed him to continue in the Excise Department, where he was holding 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 appellant belonged to the Police Department where his lien continued. The
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.
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
.),.-
y
-;
~
)-.
-~
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 department. 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
~ .
I
'·
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.
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]
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.]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
RAMLAL KHURANA (DEAD} BY LRS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
AUGUST 3, 1989
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.]
Punjab Civil Service Rules: Vol. I, Part I. Rule 3. 14-Lien of
government servant-Suspension of lien-When and 111 what circumstances.
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 departl)lent. He challenged the reversion order before the Sob-Judge, who
allowed him to continue in the Excise Department, where he was holding 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 appellant belonged to the Police Department where his lien continued. The
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.
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
.),.-
y
-;
~
)-.
-~
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 department. 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
~ .
I
'·
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.
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]
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 &
Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 1120 of 1981.
P.A. Choudhary, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi and B. Kanta Rao for the
Appellants.
C.M. Nayyar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
F
G
This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the
H
A
B
c
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1989] 3 S.C.R.
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
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.
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 pertinent observation.
E
F
G
"The plaintiff continued to hold the post beyond the
prescribed period of probation and his services were not
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 probation 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
this conclusion, that the plaintiff was in October, 1963,
holding his post substantively, that termination of his service 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
services was ill~gal."
It is thus clear from the above observation that the Court expressed 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 Commissioner 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 challenged 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 Inspector 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 holding 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 appellant 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.
A
B
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19891 3 S.C.R.
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
against the latter post. Then the lien against his previous post automatically 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. Therefore, the Excise Commissioner seems to be the only competent authority to pass the order compulsorily retiring him from service.
E
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed in the circumstances
of the case, we make no order as to costs.
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.