T. R. SHARMA versus PRITHVI SINGH & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 17-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA, P.N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 Develop-
ment 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 Agricul-
tural 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 Inspec-
tor-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 ser-
vant 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 termi-
nating 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 judgmen

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