RAMLAL KHURANA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 03-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 circums-
tances. 
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 depart-
l)lent. He challenged the reversion order before the Sob-Judge, who 
allowed him to continue in the Excise Department, where he was hold-
ing 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 appel-
lant 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 depart-
ment. 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 selec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.