A
SATYA NARAIN PAREEK
v.
STATE OF RA.IASTHAN AND ANR.
MARCH 29, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .J.J.)
Se1vice Law :
Lien of pemwnent employee in parent depa1tment-Tec/mical Educa-
C lion Depmtmenr of State Govemment of Rajasthan-Pemwnent Lower
Division Clerk-Transfer on deputation to a tenure post in Transpmt Depmt-
ment-Order of repafliation to parent dep01tment challenged on the ground
that lien in parent dep01tment had been suspended-Held, appellant being a
pennanent enzployee in Technical Education Deparlnzent, diuing his deputa-
tion in TranJpo1t Departnzent his lien shall always re1nain in parent depan-
D me11t-011 repat1iatio11 employee goes to parent depmtment and is entitled to
clabns in his ow!l right in that depa1t111ent.
E
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6964 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order date 13.5.94 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 215 of 1990.
K.M. Reddy, A.D.N. Rao, T.C. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neelam
Sharma for the Appellants.
Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk
in the Technical Education Department. He was transferred on deputation
to the Transport Department. In the impugned order he was repatriated
to the Technical Education Department. Calling that action in question,
the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned single Judge
H of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990 dismissed the same. On appeal,
1054
)
y
:~ _ _.,
~--
~-
S.N. PAREEKv. STATE
1055
in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench A
by order dated May 13,1994. Thus this appeal hy special leave.
The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the lemned
senior counsel for the appellant is that in vie\V or the letter a<ldrcssc<l by
the Technical Education Department -~hat his lien was suspended and he
could not be taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien in B
the parent deparln1cnt. Therefore, he must be <leeme<l to have pcrm<:tnently
absorhed in Transport Departtnent. We find no force in the contention.
In the counter-affidavit liled by the State, it is stated that "Since the
petitioner was, admittedly, temporarily transferred to a tenure post, his lien
in parent department cannot be suspended under 1951 Rules. The claim C
of the petitioner that his lien exist in Transport department is without any
basis and wholly misconceived". Jn view of the above specific stand taken
by the State and it is also consistent with the rules that since the appellant
being a permanent employee in Technical Education Department, during
his deputation in the Transport Department his lien shall always remain in D
the parent department. On his repatriation, he goes back to his parent
department, namely, Technical Education Department and he is entitled
to his claims in his own right in that department.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
E
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex