# T. R. SHARMA v. PRITHVI SINGH & ANR. ETC

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 716
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-11-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 354 and A 355 of 1971
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, P. N. Bhagwati, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-r-sharma-v-prithvi-singh-anr-etc-6873
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Punjab Civil Service Rules, rr. 3, 12 lNld 3, 14 (a) (2)-Scope of.
While holding the post of Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Depart·
ment, the appellant was ,appointed again>t a temporary post o.f Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Development Department of the State, and
was confirmed in that post with effect from April 1, 1964. As a result of the
partition of Punjab, the appellant and the respondents (who were also Agricultural Inspectors) were allocated to the State of Haryana. On February 26,
1969, at the request of the appellant, the Governor of Haryana deconfirmed the
appellant from the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect
from that date.
On March 20, 19'69, the Governor passed an order promoting
the appellant ·temporarily as District Agricultural Officer describing him
as
"Agricultural Inspector, now working as Block Development and Panchayat
Officer".
The respondents challenged the order, and the High Court allowed their
writ petition holding that the appellant's lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector-from which post alone he could have been promoted to the post of District
Agricultural Officer-automatically stood terminated under r. 3.12 Punjab Civil
Service Rules, on his confirmation as Block Development Officer.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Under r. 3.12 normally, a Government servant, on substantive
appointment to any permanent post, acquires a lien on that post and ceases to
hold any lien previously acquired on any other post.
Bnt, the opening words
of' the rule show that it would apply unless it is otherwise provided in the
Rules. Rule 3.14 (a) (2) provides otherwise by carving· out an exception.
It
provides that a competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, if he is appointed in
d substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne.
When the appellant was
appointed
as
Block Development and Panchayat
Officer in a substantive permanent capacity, his case fell squarely within the
ambit of r. 3 14(a) (2) as the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer
was outside the cadre of Agricnltural Inspectors to which the appellant belonged.
The ·use of the word "shall" in cl. (a) as against the use of the word "may"
in cl. (b) of the rule shows that it was imperative for the competent authority
to suspend the lien of the appellant 0n the permanent post of' Agricultural
Inspector which be held substantively.
He should not suffer because of the
competent authority's failure to do so.
[720 E, H, 721 A]
Further, under r. 3.15, in a case covered by r. 3.14 (a) (2) the suspended
lien of a Government servant may not, except on the written request of the
Government servant, be terminated while he remains in· Government service;
but no written request was made by the appellant in the presnt case for terminating his suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector.
[712-B, C]
Therefore, when the Governor deconfirmed the appellant from
the
post
of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the suspended lien of the appellant
on the post of Agricultural Inspector stood revived with effect from February
26, 1969, and his promotion in his parent Agricultural Departm~nt from the
post of Agricultural Inspector to that of District Agricultural Officer by the
impugned order, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. [721-D-E]
J •
•
!
•
.... \
-
•
'
;
T. R. SHARMA v. PRITHVI SINGH (Khanna, !.)
717

## Text

716
A
T. R. SHARMA
v.
PRITHVI SINGH & ANR. ETC.
November 17, 1975
B
[H. R. KHANNA, P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Punjab Civil Service Rules, rr. 3, 12 lNld 3, 14 (a) (2)-Scope of.
While holding the post of Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Depart·
ment, the appellant was ,appointed again>t a temporary post o.f Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Development Department of the State, and
was confirmed in that post with effect from April 1, 1964. As a result of the
partition of Punjab, the appellant and the respondents (who were also Agricultural Inspectors) were allocated to the State of Haryana. On February 26,
1969, at the request of the appellant, the Governor of Haryana deconfirmed the
appellant from the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect
from that date.
On March 20, 19'69, the Governor passed an order promoting
the appellant ·temporarily as District Agricultural Officer describing him
as
"Agricultural Inspector, now working as Block Development and Panchayat
Officer".
The respondents challenged the order, and the High Court allowed their
writ petition holding that the appellant's lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector-from which post alone he could have been promoted to the post of District
Agricultural Officer-automatically stood terminated under r. 3.12 Punjab Civil
Service Rules, on his confirmation as Block Development Officer.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : Under r. 3.12 normally, a Government servant, on substantive
appointment to any permanent post, acquires a lien on that post and ceases to
hold any lien previously acquired on any other post.
Bnt, the opening words
of' the rule show that it would apply unless it is otherwise provided in the
Rules. Rule 3.14 (a) (2) provides otherwise by carving· out an exception.
It
provides that a competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, if he is appointed in
d substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne.
When the appellant was
appointed
as
Block Development and Panchayat
Officer in a substantive permanent capacity, his case fell squarely within the
ambit of r. 3 14(a) (2) as the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer
was outside the cadre of Agricnltural Inspectors to which the appellant belonged.
The ·use of the word "shall" in cl. (a) as against the use of the word "may"
in cl. (b) of the rule shows that it was imperative for the competent authority
to suspend the lien of the appellant 0n the permanent post of' Agricultural
Inspector which be held substantively.
He should not suffer because of the
competent authority's failure to do so.
[720 E, H, 721 A]
Further, under r. 3.15, in a case covered by r. 3.14 (a) (2) the suspended
lien of a Government servant may not, except on the written request of the
Government servant, be terminated while he remains in· Government service;
but no written request was made by the appellant in the presnt case for terminating his suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector.
[712-B, C]
Therefore, when the Governor deconfirmed the appellant from
the
post
of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the suspended lien of the appellant
on the post of Agricultural Inspector stood revived with effect from February
26, 1969, and his promotion in his parent Agricultural Departm~nt from the
post of Agricultural Inspector to that of District Agricultural Officer by the
impugned order, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. [721-D-E]
J •
•
!
•
.... \
-
•
'
;
T. R. SHARMA v. PRITHVI SINGH (Khanna, !.)
717
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 354 and
A
355 of 1971.
'
From the Judgment dated 28th October 1970 of the Punjab and
Haryaaa High Court at-Chandigarh in L.P.As. Nos. 85 and 86/70 .
M. N. Phadke, P. C. Bhartari and K. K. John for the Appellant
(in both the appeals).
S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja,
M. Qamaruddin and P. N. Puri
for Respondent No. 1 (In CA 354) and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
/
(in C.A. 355)
:J. . ~J
Naunit Lal and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent 2 in CA 354
and respondent 3 in CA 355.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.-This judgment would dispose of two civil appeals
Nos. 354 and 355 of 1971 which have been filed on certificate by
Tuhi Ram Sharma appellant against the Full Bench judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
·
The appellnnt joined service as Agricultural Inspector in
the
Agricultural Department of Punjab
Governmc,1t in
1945.
Teja
Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh joined as Agricultural faspectors 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 appe!la·nt· w:.is 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
permanen.t
Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect from April l,
1964.
As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as
Teja Shlgh, Bhalc Ram and Prithvi Singh were allocated to the State
of Haryana.
On February 26, 1969 the
Governor of
Haryana
passed a11 order deconfirming the appellant on his request from the
post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect from
that date.
On March
20,
1969
the
Governor
of Haryana
passed the in;Jpugned order which reads as under :
"The Governor of Haryana is pleased to promote temporarily- Shri Tuhi Ram Sharma, Agricultural Inspector,
now working •as Block Development and Panchayat Officer
as District Agricultural Officer in H.A.S. Class II subject
to the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission
and- to post him at Rohtak in place of Shri Narain Singh
who is transferred
to
N arnaul as
District Agricultural
Officer, Shri Prithvi Singh who is working against the post
of District Agricultural Officer, Narnaul is reverted to the
post of Agricultural Inspector being the junior-most.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
A
The character roll file of Shri Tuhi Ram in two parts
is sent herewith.
Its receipt may please be acknowledged."
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Two writ petitions were filed praying the quashing of the above order.
One petition was filed by Prithvi Si•agh respondent and the other was
filed by Bhale Ram •and Teja Singh respondents.
Learned
single
Judge (Tuli J.) as per judgment dated January 30, 1970 allowed both
the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order on the following
two grounds :
"(i) the impugned promotion had been made ii\ violation of the mandatory requirewents of rule 7 of the
Haryana Agricultural Service Class II Rules, 1947
(hereinafter called the 194 7 rules) which required
appointment being made to the service by promotion
by selection on the advice of Haryana Public Service Comn;iission inasmuch· as Sharma had bee•n promoted without obtaining the advice of the Commission which h•ad 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 confirmatio11 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 State, ceased to be ·a
member
of
the
Harya•,rn Agricultural Service from which post alone
he could have been promoted to the post in question, •and his lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector automatically stood terminated under Rule
3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I,
Part I."
It was also observed by learned single Judge that but for the earlier
Division Bench judgment in the case of Labhu Ram & Ors. v. State
of Puniab, he would have been incli'aed to hold in favour of Sharma
appellant on the second point mentioned above.
Four Letters Patent
appeals were filed against the judgment of the single Judge.
Two
of those appeals were by Sharma appellant, while the other two were
filed by the State of Haryana.
When the appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the leamed Judge' referred the matter to the Full Bench.
In the meantime, on March 5, 1970
the
Governor of Haryana in consultation with the Hatyana Public Service Commission promoted Sharma appellant as District Agricultural
Officer in Class II on regul>ar basis and posted him as such with
effect from April l , 1969.
All the learned Judges co'nstituting the
Full Bench held that the first ground on which the impugned order
had been quashed, namely, non-procurrag of the advance advice of the
-
•
'
•. ,
i
T. R. SHARMA v. PRITHVI SINGH (Khanna, !.)
719
Haryana Public Service Commission was not well founded. It was also
observed that the e>arlier case of Labhu Ram was clearly distinguishable and had no bearing.
By a majority of two to O'ne the
FulT
Bench upheld the judgment 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 asB
sailed in these two •appeals before us.
Mr. Phadke on behalf of the appellants has invited our attentioll'
to the relevant rules on the subject and has contended that the conclusion of the majority of the learaed Judges of the Full Bench that
the lieu 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, we are of the opinion that there is considerable merit in
the cco,1tention of Mr. Phadke.
c
We may at the outset reproduce the relevant rules of the Punjab
Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I as appliC'able to the State of
D
Haryana:
"3.12. Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in
these Rules, a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on
that post
a«1d ceases to hold any lien
previously
acquired on any
other post.
3.14. (a) A competent authority shall suspend the lien
of a Government servant on a permanent
post which he
holds substantively; if he is
appointed in a
substantive
capacity.
(1)
(2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on
he is borne, or
(3)
which
3.15. (a) Except as provided in clause (c) of this rule
and in note under rule 3.13, a Government servant's lien
on a post may, in no circumstances, be terminated, even
with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without
a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post.
(b) Ill a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a)
of rule 3.14 the suspeaded lien may not, except on
the
written request of the Government servant .concerned, be
E
F
G
H
720
SUPJ{EME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
A
terminated while the Government servant remains in Government service.
·c '
D
E
H
(c) Notwithstanding the prov1s10ns of rule 3.14(a), the
lien of a Governmeat 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.-ln a case covered by rule 3.14(a) (2), where a
Government serva'at 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
inconvenience to the parent office.
Such a situation
may be met by
appropriate
executive
action being taken by the controlling officer who may refuse his ccmsent to such a Government servant being c0'11firmed or retained in a permanent post outside his cadre
unless he agrees to his lien on a
permanent post in his
parent office being terminated."
The Jeoarned Judges constituting the maionty of the Full Bench
in holding that the
appellant's
lien on the
post of
Agricultural
Inspector had stood terminated relied
upon rule 3.12.
Perusal of
the above rule shows that normally a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lie,1 on thnt
post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other
post.
The opening words of the above rule, however, show that it
would apply unless it be otherwise provided in the rules.
Rule
3.14(a) (2) carves out an excepti@ to the general rule
contained
in rule 3.12.
According to rule
3.14(a) (2), a competent authority shall suspenq the lien of a Government servant on a permanent
post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive
capacity to a perma~1ent post outside the cadre on which he is borne.
When the appellant was appointed •as Block Development and Panchayat Officer in a substantive permanent capacity, his case squarely
fell within the ambit of rule 3.14(a) (2) as the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer was outside the cadre of Agricultural
Inspectors to which the appellant belonged.
fa 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 subsmntively. The competent authority, however, failed
to suspend the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector.
The appellant plah1ly cannot suffer because of such inaction or omission on the part of the competent authority.
A reading
of the rnle leaves no doubt that a duty is cast upon the competent
•
.,... \
!
-
T. R. SHARMA v. PRITHVI SINGH (Khanna, !.)
721
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 also clear from the
use of the word "shall" in clause (a) •as against the use of the word
"may" in clause (b) of that rule.
The appellant, in our opinion,
cannot be pei1alised because of the omission of the competent authority to act in accordance with the mandatory provisions of rule 3.14
(a) ( 2). Clause (b) of rule 3 .15 also makes it clear that in a case
covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of rule 3.14, the suspended
lien of the Government servant concerned may not, except on_ the
written request of that Gover,1ment servant, be
terminated
while
he remains in Government service.
The note to rule 3.15 shows a
way out in case any difficulty is experienced on account of the operation of rule 3.14(a) (2). It is nobody's case that any written request was made by the appellant for terminating his suspended lien
m the post of Agricultural Inspector.
As such, we find it difficult
to uphold the finding of the majority of the learned Judges that the
lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had stood
terminated.
In our opinion, the third Judge who W'aS in the minority took a correct view of the ma,tter when he observed that the
Government servant is not to be penalised and cannot be deprived
of the safeguards provided by rule 3 .14 because of the fact that the
competent authority had not taken the necessary steps.
As the Governor has deconfirmed the appellant from the post
of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the suspended lien of
the appellm1t on the post of Agricultural Inspector would stand revived with effect from February 26, 1969. The promotion of the
appellant in the parent Agricultural Department from the_ post of
Agricultural Inspector to that of District Agricultural Officer by the
impugned order cannot in the circumstances be held to suffer from
any legal infirmity.
We accordingly accept the two appeals, set aside the judgments
of the learned single Judge a'ad the Full Bench and dismiss the writ
petitions filed by Prithvi Singh, Bhale Ram and Tej'a Singh respondents.
The parties in the circumstances shall bear their own costs
throughout.
V.P.S.
Appeals allowed.
c
D
E