TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA versus STATE OF UP. AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 20-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA 
V. 
·~ 
STATE OF UP. AND ORS. 
\..· 
DECEMBER 20, 1991 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Civil Services 
U.P. Fundamental Rules 
.~ 
c 
Rules 9(13),14-A and 14-8-Lien-When can be acquired-Employee 
appointed on temporary basis in one department selected and appointed 
de novo in another department-Whether entitled to retain lien in the original 
department. 
Constitution of India, 1950 
D 
Article 311-Termination of service-Temporary Govrenment servant-
Order of termination (simpliciter) on grounds of unsuitabilitY-Whether puni-
tive in nature and invalid. 
r 
Words and Phrases-Word 'lien'-Meaning of 
E 
The appellant, who was working as Lekhpal, was selected and 
appointed as a Consolidator in the Department of Consolidation. Subse-
quently, he was also promoted as Assistant Consolidation Officer. After 
about 17 years' service in that Department, he received an order from the 
Consolidation Commissioner terminating his services, without assigning 
F 
any reasons. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration that the 
order of termination was illegal, void and ineffective and that, having been 
on deputation, he was entitled to his original substantive post of Lekhpal 
on which he was having lien. The appllant claimed that since he was on 
deputation, he should have been reverted back to his original department 
~· 
G and the termination was violative of Rules 14-A and 14-B of the U.P. 
t{;4olll 
Fundamental Rules. 
' 
The appellant's claim was denied by the first rspondent State. It con-
' 
tended that the appellant held the post of Lekhpal in an officiating 
capacity and not in substantive capacity, and that he had no lien on that 
H post at the time of his appointment as Consolidator in the Department of 
534 
T.S. SAXENA v. STATE 
535 
Consolidation, and that his appointment as Consolidator and as A.C.O. A 
1as quite temporary and his services were terminated under the rules 
after paying one month's salary. 
The U.P. Services Tribunal, to which the suit was transferred, held 
that the order of termination of the appellant's services bad been passed 
arbitrarily and whimsically by the authorities, and that it was illegal and B 
void, and that the appellant would be entitled to get all the benefits 
according to the rules. 
Allowing the respondent-State's Writ Petition against the Tribunal's 
order, the High Court held that the termination order was not arbitrary 
or whimsical, nor was it passed to impose any penalty on the appellant. 
C 
· In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the employee it was 
contended that the appellant should have been reverted back to his 
original department and that his services should not have been terminated 
merely on the ground of adverse entries in his personal file without com-
plying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, and that the D 
termination order was a punitive act.ion casting stigma on him. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. Even on the appellant's own showing he was appointed 
as a Lekhpal on 6.4.1953 and held the same till 15.11.1954, for a period of E 
one year and seven months. His appointment order unambiguously shows 
that it was only on a temporary basis. The appellant has not shown that 
he had been confirmed in a premanent post and that he was holding that 
appointment substantively either immediatley or on the termination of a 
period so as to make a claim of lien to the post of Lekhpal by a\·ailing the F 
benefit of Rules 14-A and 14-8 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. A person 
can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he is confirmed and made 
permanent on that post and not earlier. [544 B, CJ 
M.P. Tewari v. Union of India, 1974 A.L.J. 427, approved. 
Paresh Chandra v. Controller of Stores, AIR 1971 S.C. 359; P.L. 
Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 S.C. 36, referred to. 
Ilalsbury' s laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 28 at page 221, 
para 502; Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition Vol. 25, pages 393, 399, 
G 
referred to. 
· 
H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
A 
1.2 Therefore, it canot be said that the appellant held the post in a 
B 
c 
substantive capacity on. permanent basis on the date when he was ap-
pointed as a Consolidator. In the absence of any such proof in this regard, 
the appellant was employed as Lekhpal on a temporary basis and there-
after appeared before the Selection Board an·d was selected denovo as a

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