http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAM SARAN AND ANR. ECT.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/02/1991

BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 729        1991 SCC  (2) 253  JT 1991 (1)   569        1991 SCALE  (1)359

ACT:      Service  and  Labour Law: Punjab  Excise  and  Taxation Department  (State Service Class III-A)  Rules,  1956/Punjab Excise  and  Taxation Department (State  Service  Class  II) Rule 57 Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules,  1943-Rules 7(a)(ii).      Rule  5-Punjab  Excise and Taxation  Department  (State Service Class-II) Rules-Promotion of ministerial staff cadre as  Excise  and  Taxation  Officers-Abolition  of  cadre  of Assistant   Excise   and   Taxation   Officers   eligibility requirement  for Excise/Taxation Inspector 5  years  minimum experience  as  such-Employees  on  deputation/transfer   or holding  post  in  different cadre  not  entitled  to  claim service  in  that  cadre to be  treated  experience  in  the ministerial cadre.

HEADNOTE:      In the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department there were two  separate cadres known as "Assistant Excise  &  Taxation Officers"  governed  under  the State  Service  Class  III-A Rules, 1956 and "Excise & Taxation Officers" governed by the State  Service  Class II Rules.  Under the class  II  Rules, appointments  were  made in the ratio of(a)  50%  by  direct recruitment and (b) 50% by promotion from amongst  Assistant Excise  and  Taxation Officers.  Likewise  under  the  Class III-A  Rules  50%  of the vacancies were  filled  by  direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the subordinate  staff comprising  the  Taxation  Inspectors,   Excise  Inspectors, Ministerial  Staff  Head Office and Ministerial  Staff  Sub- office who within themselves had shares as laid down.      The Writ Petitioners and the contesting respondents-Ram Saran  and  O.P.  Singhla had initially  joined  the  Punjab Excise and Taxation Department as clerks and were  confirmed as  such.   The Petitioners were promoted and  appointed  as Excise/Taxation  Inspectors by transfer under Rule  7(a)(ii) of  the  Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules,  1943  and their  lien in the taxation department suspended under  Rule 3.14(b)  of  the Punjab Civil Service  Rules.   Whereas  Ram Saran  and O.P. Singhla continued in the  ministerial  cadre and  were Assistant and Superintendent respectively  at  the relevant time.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

                                                      730      Following  reorganisation of the department, the  carde of  Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers was  abolished  and all   the   Assistant  Excise  &  Taxation   Officers   were redesignated as Excise and Taxation Officers.   Consequently Class III-A Rules became redundant.  As under Class II Rules there  was no provision for promotion of  subordinate  staff direct as Excise & Taxation Officers the Government in order to  provide  avenues of promotion to the  ministerial  carde including Taxation Inspectors and Excise Inspectors  brought in  suitable  amendments  to these Rules  on  the  following terms.     "Rule  5. The members of the service shall be  recruited in the following manner namely:     (a)                  xxx            xxx         xxx     (b). In the case of an Excise and Taxation Officer;      (i)  by promotion from amongst the  Taxation Inspectors and  Excise Inspectors who have an experience of working  as such for a minimum period of five years; or      (ii)  by  promotion from amongst  the  Superintendents, Assistant,   Accountants  and  Senior  Scale   Stenographers working in the Excise and Taxation Commissioners Head Office and in the Divisional and District Offices of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab."      Applying  the  draft  amended Rules  before  they  were formally  promulgated the contesting respondents  Ram  Saran and O.P. Singhla were promoted as Excise & Taxation Officers on 22.8.1983.  The Writ Petitioners who had been transferred earlier  to other cardes of Excise/Taxation  Inspectors  and worked  there  for 14/15 years beyond the  probation  period were not considered. They therefore, filed writ petitions in the  High Court challenging the promotion of the  appellants mainly  on the ground that on the basis of  their  seniority and  lien in the ministerial cadre, they had a right  to  be considered for promotion prior to the appellants.      The  appellants  and the State contended  that  if  the Petitioners  wanted  to be considered for this post  on  the basis of their lien in the ministerial carde, they may  seek reversion  to this cadre and thereafter their case would  be considered on merits in accordance with the eligilbility  as prescribed   under   the  amended  Rule   5-which   includes experience of working as such for a period of five years  in the ministerial                                                        731 cadre.   To this reply of the Writ Petitioners was  that  if the  service rendered by them in the other cadre  as  Excise and  Taxation  Inspectors  was  not  considered  as  service rendered in the ministerial cadre, they would be  ineligible for  consideration to this post.  The learned  single  judge accepted  the  petitioners’ contention and in  allowing  the Writ Petitions held that there was no conscious decision  to apply the draft rules and consequently the Petitioners  were entitled to be considered for the post of Excise &  Taxation Officers without any bar of eligibility as their juniors had already been considered.  On appeal, the Division Bench took the  view that the draft rules, though not promulgated  were rightly  implemented.   However  on  the  question   whether service rendered by the Petitioners on transfer to the other cadres  could be considered as having been rendered  in  the Ministerial  cadre,  the  Division  Bench  relying  on   the decision  of  this court in State of Mysore & Anr.  v.  P.N. Nanjundiah  & Anr., [1969] 3 SCC 633, held that it  did  and that  if that is counted the petitioners would  be  eligible for promotion under the relevant rules with their  suspended lien reviving with effect from the date it had suspended and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

they shall be considered forthwith.  Against this order  Ram Saran  and  O.P. Singhla have preferred appeals  by  special leave  and  so  has the  State  separately.   Reversing  the decision  of  the  High  Court  and  allowing  the   appeals dismissing the writ petitions, this Court,      HELD:  From the scheme of the Rules and the  method  of recruitment  it is clear that the petitioners while  working as  Inspectors on appointment by transfer to that cadre  had the advantage of being considered for promotion as  Officers under  the amended Rule 5 out of the quota  for  Inspectors, while  the  ministerial  staff  to  the  exclusion  of   the Inspectors were entitled to certain percentage. [739E]      The petitioners without being on the ministerial  cadre even  by reversion could not claim promotion as a member  of the  ministerial  cadre without revival of the  lien.   Such revival  could be effected only on reversion and  not  while the lien remained suspended. [739F]      If the Government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased  to  hold  the post in another cadre.   There  is  no revival of the lien during the period the employee continues to  hold  a post in another cadre.   Therefore,  during  the period  the  suspension is operative,  the  employee  cannot claim that he had been continuing in the post in the  parent cadre and gaining experience. [740G]                                                        732      When  the  rule  is clear and  specific  that  for  the purpose  of  promotion from the  cadre  of  Superintendents, Assistants,  Accountants, Senior Scale Stenographers to  the post  of  Excise  and  Taxation  Officers,  the  eligibility qualification  is ’experience of working’ as such’ for  five years, the employee is not entitled to claim the  experience in the ex-cadre as experience of working in the  ministerial cadre. [740H-741A]      State  of  Mysore  & Anr. v. P.N.  Nanjundian  &  Anr., [1969] 3 SCC 633, distinguished.      C.  Narasinga Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh  by its Secretary, Vol. 2 1968 S.L.R. 644 relied upon.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 945-47 of 1991.      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  8.8.1990  of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 266, 267 and  268 of 1986.      P.P.  Rao, J. Lal, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, S.K. Bagga  and C.M. Nayar for the Appellants.      G.L. Singhi, J.K. Sibal and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by      FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Special leave granted.      These  Civil  Appeals arise from  the  common  judgment dated  8.8.1990  of  the High Court of  Punjab  and  Haryana dismissing Letters Patent Apeals against the judgment  dated 12.2.1986 of the single Judge allowing writ petitions  filed under  Articles  226 and 227 of the Constitution  of  India. Civil  Appeals  arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.  14471-73  of 1990  are  filed by the State of Punjab  and  Civil  Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14236-38 of 1990 are filed by Ram  Saran  and O.P. Singhla, the respondents  in  the  writ petitions.   We  shall  hereinafter  refer  the   contesting respondents  Ram Saran and O.P. Singhla as ’the  appellants’ and  writ petitioners as ’the petitioners’ for the  sake  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

convenience.      In the Punjab Excise & Taxation Department, there  were two  separate and distinct cadres known as Assistant  Excise and Taxation                                                        733 Officers  governed  under  the Punjab  Excise  and  Taxation Department   (State   Service  Class  III-A)   Rules,   1956 (hereinafter  referred  to as Class III/A  Rules’)  and  the Excise  and Taxation Officers governed by the Punjab  Excise and  Taxation  Department (State Service  Class  II)  Rules. Under the Class II Rules, appointment to the cadre of Excise and Taxation Officers was made (a) by direct recruitment  to the  extent  of  50%  and  (b)  by  promotion  from  amongst Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers to the extent of 50%. Under Class III-A Rules, subordinate staff was eligible  for promotion to the extent of 50% of the vacancies of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers and their shares were as under:      (i)  Taxation Inspector                  25%      (ii) Excise Inspector                    12 1/2%      (iii) Ministerial Staff Head Office       6 1/4%      (iv) Ministerial Staff Sub-Office          6 1/4%      The  appellants as well as the writ petitioners  joined the ministerial cadre of the Excise and Taxation  Department as Clerks and were confirmed as such.  The writ  petitioners were  promoted  to the higher post and  later  appointed  as Excise/Taxation  Inspectors  in 1971-72 by  transfers  under Rule  7(a)(ii)  of  the Punjab  Excise  Subordinate  Service Rules,   1943.    On  such   transfer   as   Excise/Taxation Inspectors,  the lien of the writ petitioners was  suspended in  accordance  with the provisions of Rule 3.14(b)  of  the Punjab   Civil  Services  Rules  (Volume  I  Part-I).    The appellants continued in the ministerial cadre, Ram Saran  as Assistant and O.P. Singhla as Superintendent.      The  Excise and Taxation Department was reorganised  on 18th May, 1977.  The cadre of Assistant Excise and  Taxation Officers  was abolished on 18th May, 1977 and the  Assistant Excise  and  Taxation Officers were redesignated  as  Excise and Taxation Officers.  Thereafter Class III-A Rules  became redundant  and inoperative and under Class II  Rules  became redundant  and inoperative and under Class II  Rules,  there was no provision for promotion from subordinate staff direct as Excise and Taxation Officers.      The Government in order to provide avenues of promotion to the subordinate staff decided to make suitable  amendment to the Class  II Rules on the following terms:      "Rule 5.  The members of the service shall be recruited in                                                        734          the following manner, namely:          a.  xxx                   xxx                   xxx          b.  In the case of an Excise and Taxation Officer;          (i)   by  promotion  from  amongst   the   Taxation          Inspectors  and  Excise  Inspectors  who  have   an          experience of working as such for a minimum  period          of five years; or          (ii) by promotion from amongst the Superintendents,          Assistant,    Accountants    and    Senior    Scale          Stenographers  working in the Excise  and  Taxation          Commissioners Head Office and in the Divisional and          District  Offices of the Department of  Excise  and          Taxation, Punjab,"      It  was  further provided that there  will  be  certain quota for each of the above categories for promotion to  the rank of Excise and Taxation Officers.  The State  Government decided to adopt and apply the draft provision of Rule 5  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  matter of filling up of the vacancies in the  carde  of Excise/Taxation  Officers  before rules  could  be  formally promulgated.  Thus on 22.8.1983, Ram Saran and O.P.  Singhla were   promoted  as  Excise/Taxation  Officers.   The   writ petitioners  having been transferred to the other cadres  of Excise/Taxation  Inspectors have continued there  for  14/15 years beyond and period of probation and also qualified  the departmental   test  for  Inspectors  and  they   were   not considered for the promotion as Excise and Taxtion Officers. The  writ petitions were, therefore, filed  challenging  the promotion of the appellant mainly on the ground that on  the basis  of  their  seniority  and lien on  the  post  in  the ministerial  cadre, the writ petitioners had a right  to  be considered for promotion to the post of Excise and  Taxation Officers prior to the appellants.      The  contention of the appellants as well as the  State was  that  though the lien of the writ  petitioners  in  the ministerial cadre was suspended in terms of Rule 3.14(b)  of the  Punjab Civil Service Rules, if the  petitioners  wanted that  they should be considered for the post of  Excise  and Taxation  Officers  on  the  basis  of  their  lien  in  the ministerial  cadre, they may seek reversion  and  thereafter their  case would be considered on merits and  under  rules. It was clarified by the Financial Commissioner in the  order dated  7.8.1985 that the case of the writ petitioners  would be considered in the light of the eligibility under the                                                        735 relevant  rule,  that is to say, the amended  Rule  5.   The eligibility  prescribed  under the said rule  for  promotion from amongst Superintendents etc. in the ministerial service includes experience of working as such for a period of  five years.   The  writ  petitioners felt  that  if  the  service rendered  by them as Excise and Taxation Inspectors was  not being  considered  as service rendered  in  the  ministerial cadre,  they  would be ineligible for consideration  to  the post of Excise and Taxation Officers.      The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the writ  petitioners  that there was no conscious  decision  to apply  the  draft  rules and consequently for  the  post  of Excise  and  Taxation  Officer,  the  writ  petitioners  are entitled to be considered without any bar of eligibility  as their juniors had already been considered for the post.   On appeal, the Division Bench proceeded on the assumption  that the   draft  rules  though  not  promulgated  were   rightly implemented.   The  Division Bench dealt with  the  question whether  the  service rendered on transfer to  the  ex-cadre would be available to the writ petitioners in the matter  of their promotion to the higher posts thus:          "In   view  of  this,  question  that   calls   for          determination is as to whether on the return of the          writ  petitioners  from  the  post  of  Excise  and          Taxation  Inspectors to the Ministerial cadre,  the          service rendered by them on the post of Excise  and          Taxation  Inspector  could by  deeming  fiction  be          considered   as   having  been  rendered   in   the          Ministerial  cadre? The answer to this question  is          that  such  a service is to be counted  as  if  the          petitioners  were always in the Ministerial  cadre.          Once it is held that the petitioner  lien was  only          suspended  under Rule 3.14(b) of the  Punjab  Civil          Service Rules, the petitioners had a right to  come          back  to their posts in the Ministerial  cadre  and          once  that is so, the rest would follow as  if  for          all  times deemingly they were in  the  Ministerial          cadre."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    The Division Bench relied on the decision of this Court in State of Mysore & Anr. v. P.N. Nanjundiah & Anr.,  [1969] 3  SCC 633, and opined that the entire service  rendered  by the  petitioners as Excise and Taxation Inspectors  will  be considered  in the Ministerial cadre and if that is  counted the  petitioners would be eligible for promotion  under  the relevant  rules.    It  rejected  the  contention  that  the petitioners could not be said to be retaining a lien in  the Ministerial  cadre  as they had successfully  completed  the period of probation as Excise and Taxation                                                        736 Inspectors  and they will be deemed to be  confirmed  there. The Division Bench endorsed the view that the revival of the lien  essentially means that it stands revived  with  effect from  the  date  it had been suspended,  and  dismissed  the appeals observing:          "......we  may observe that the  petitioners  shall          now  be considered forthwith for the posts of  ETOs          from  the date their juniors were promoted  and  if          found  suitable they will be promoted to that  rank          from the dates their juniors were promoted and they          would be entitled to all the consequential benefits          arising out of their promotion from the said date."      Shri  P.P. Rao, the Senior Counsel for the  appellants, and Shri G.L. Sanghi, the Senior Counsel for the respondents (writ   petitioners),  conceded  that  both  parties   claim promotion  to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers  only by virtue of the provision in the amended Rule 5 of Class II Rules and,  therefore, the question whether there  had  been conscious  application of the said rule before  promulgation is only academic.  We agree with the view of the High  Court that  for  the  purpose of present controversy  we  have  to assume  that  the  amended Rules  were  rightly  implemented before  they  were  formally promulgated  in  effecting  the promotions now challenged.      The  appellants  maintain that the  Division  Bench  as clearly  wrong, and that the petitioners in order  to  claim the  benefit of promotion from the ministerial  cadre  under the   amended   Rules  have  necessarily  to   satisfy   the eligibility  test.   To be more specific, they  should  have actual  experience  of five years in the  ministerial  cadre even when they are reverted back to that cadre.      We  have  said that the petitioners were  appointed  as Inspectors  by  transfer under Rule 7 of the  Punjab  Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1943 and thereafter they belonged to  a different cadre.  Their lien had also  been  suspended after three years.      The  Punjab  Civil Services Rules, Volume, I,  Part  I, Rule 3.14 reads:          "3.14. (a) A competent authority shall suspend  the          lien  of a Government employee on a permanent  post          which he holds substantively; if he is appointed in          a substantive capacity-                                                        737          (1) to a tenure post, or          (2) to a permanent post outside the cadre on  which          he is borne, or          (3)  provisionally,  to  a post  on  which  another          Government employee would hold a lien, had his lien          not been suspended under this rule.                (b) A competent authority may, at its option,          suspend  the  lien of a Government  employee  on  a          permanent  post which he holds substantively if  he          is  deputed out of India or transferred to  foreign          service, or in circumstances not covered by  clause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

        (a)  of  this rule, is transferred,  whether  in  a          substantive  or officiating capacity, to a post  in          another  cadre, and if in any of these cases  there          is  reason  to believe that he will  remain  absent          from  the  post  on which he holds a  lien,  for  a          period of not less that three years.                (c)            xxx            xxx       xxx                (d) If a Government employee’s lien on a post          is suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this  rule,          the  post  may  be filled  substantively,  and  the          Government   employees   appointed   to   hold   it          substantively shall acquire a lien on it:  Provided          that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon  as          the suspended lien revives.          Note            1.        xxx       xxx         xxx          Note. 2.-When a post is filled substantively  under          this  clause,  the appointment will  be  termed  "a          provisional  appointment"; the Government  employee          appointed will hold a provisional lien on the post;          and  that lien will be liable to  suspension  under          clause (a) but not under clause (b) of this rule.                (e)       xxx            xxx            xxx                (f)  A Government employee’s lien  which  has          been suspended under clause (b) of this rule  shall          revive  as soon as  he ceased to be  on  deputation          out  of  India or on foreign service or to  hold  a          post in another cadre ..."                                                        738      According  to  the appellants, the  respondents  having been  transferred  to  the  cadre  of  Excise  and  Taxation Inspectors and having continued there for 14/15 years beyond the  period of probation, their lien over  ministerial  post was  suspended.   The consideration of their names  for  the purpose  of promotion as Excise and Taxation  Officers  from the  ministerial  post  did not  arise.   The  amended  Rule introduced  eligibility  that  would  exclude  the   service rendered  by  the  petitioners in other posts  and  if  such service  is excluded, the petitioners would  be  ineligible. The  lien  of  the petitioners had  been  suspended  by  the competent  authority under the mandatory provisions of  Rule 3.14(b)  referred  to.  They could seek reversion  to  their parent   ministerial  cadre  and  claim  consideration   for promotion  to  the  post of  Excise  and  Taxation  Officers according  to their eligibility and suitability.   The  next below  rule does not apply to the case of promotion  to  the higher posts in other cadres under specific rules  governing promotions to those cadres.      The  recruitment  to the post of  Excise  and  Taxation Officer is governed by Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State  Service Class II) Rules, 1956.  The  eligibility  of Taxation  Inspectors  and Excise Inspectors and  members  of ministerial  establishment for the post is governed  by  the amended  Rule 5.  According to the proposed  Rule  5(b)(ii), promotion  to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer is  to be  made  from  amongst  the  Superintendents,   Assistants, Accountants  and Senior Scale Stenographers working  in  the Excise  and  Taxation Commissioners Head Office and  in  the District and Divisional Offices.  In view of this provision, the  Taxation  Inspectors and Excise Inspectors  whose  lien against  their  posts  in the ministerial  cadres  has  been suspended   and  who  are  not  working  on   the   eligible ministerial establishment posts and who have been working as Taxation Inspectors and Excise Inspectors for a long  number of  year  cannot  claim  that  they  are  to  be  considered automatically  for  recruitment to the post  of  Excise  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Taxation  Officer.  The normal line of promotion within  the cadre  for the members of the ministerial establishment  was from  the  lowest post of a Clerk to the highest post  of  a Superintendent.   So also the further channel  of  promotion was  open  to  the  Inspectors to the  post  of  Excise  and Taxation  Officer.  If the Inspectors are to  be  considered for  the post of Excise and Taxation Officer from the  quota of  the ministerial establishment, that will result  in  the Inspectors  getting  two  avenues for  promotion  while  the ministerial  staff  losing  even  the  one  which  had  been provided.      The  appointment  to the ex-cadre posts of  Excise  and Taxation  Inspector is made by transfer in  accordance  with the provisions of Rule                                                        739 7  of  Subordinate Service Rules, 1943  which  provide  that appointment  to the cadre post shall be made by transfer  or deputation of an official already in Government service.  It implies  that  any Government employee irrespective  of  his office  can  be appointed as Excise or  Taxation  Inspector. The  Excise  and Taxation Inspectors’  cadre  is  distinctly different  from  the  ministerial  cadre  having  duties  or functions  altogether  different  in  nature  and   content. Instead  of waiting for their turn to be promoted  from  the Inspectors quota, the petitioners have laid the claim to the quota  in the ministerial service.  The appellants are  also persons who have been confirmed in the ministerial cadre and have  worked  for more than 20 years as  such.   The  result would  be that there would be no promotions to the  post  of Excise  and Taxation Officer from the ministerial  staff  as such,  and those who got transferred as Inspectors would  be getting double benefit by claiming promotion to the post  of Excise  and Taxation Officer as members of  the  ministerial staff  while retaining their right to claim  promotion  from within  the quota specifically provided for the  Inspectors. The  petitioners with suspended lien on the post  of   Clerk and  continuously holding the Inspector’s post for  over  13 years  cannot  be  considered to be at  par  with  officials continuously  working  on the ministerial post for  over  21 year.      From  the  scheme  of  the  Rules  and  the  method  of recruitment, it is clear that the petitioners while  working as  Inspectors on appointment by transfer to that cadre  had the advantage of being considered for promotion as  Officers under  the amended Rule 5 out of the quota  for  Inspectors, while  the  ministerial  staff  to  the  exclusion  of   the Inspectors   were  entitled  to  certain  percentage.    The petitioners  without being on the ministerial cadre even  by reversion  could  not  claim promotion as a  member  of  the ministerial cadre without revival of the lien.  Such revival could  be effected only on reversion and not while the  lien remained  suspended.  When the rule requires members of  the ministerial staff to have experience as such for five  years to satisfy the elibility requirement, the Inspectors  cannot claim  that service in the different cadre with  their  lien suspended be equated to service in the ministerial cadre and treated  as experience in the ministerial cadre even if  the functions  and duties of the Inspectors may be of  identical nature.   The purpose of the rule is to provide  promotional avenues  to  different categories within  specified  limits. The benefit intended for one category cannot be extended  to another category by stretching the rules, particularly  when no   injustice   would  result.   The  argument   that   the petitioners  if found ineligible would remain  in the  lower cadre  while their juniors are being promoted to the  higher

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

cadre                                                        740 cannot  be coutenanced.  Even when the juniors continued  in the lower ministerial cadre for long years, the  petitioners were  in  a different cadre which had a  larger  promotional avenue  and  they  are  satisfied  in  that  post.   If  the petitioners did not exercise their option to revert back  to the   ministerial  cadre  at  the  right  time  to   qualify themselves  for further promotion, the appellants cannot  be deprived  of the benefit they derived by continuing  in  the lower  cadre on account of that situation.  The  High  Court was  clearly  wrong  in holding that  the  petitioners  have acquired  eligibility by rendering service in the  cadre  of Inspectors since their lien had been suspended.      The  decision  in  State of Mysore’s  case  (supra)  is distinguishable  on  facts.   Rule 53(b)(i)  of  the  Mysore Service Rules considered in that case provided that  service in  another  post whether in a  substantive  or  officiating capacity  shall  count  for increments  in  the  time  scale applicable to the post on which the Government servant holds a  lien  or as well as in the time scale applicable  to  the post, if any, on which he would hold a lien had his lien not been  suspended.  The Court noticed that the service  of  an officer  on deputation to another department is  treated  as equivalent to the service in the parent department under the rule.   On account of that equation between the  service  in the  two  departments,  it  was held  that  the  service  on deputation  should  be deemed to be rendered in  the  parent department.   The ratio of the decision is,  therefore,  not applicable in the present case.      In  C. Narasinga Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra  Pradesh by  its  Secretary,  Vol. 2 1968 S.L.R.644, Rule  9  of  the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules  provided that  service rendered in the transferred department  should be deemed to have been rendered in the parent department for promotion  and  seniority.   And  when  the  rule  is   thus specific,  it was held that the petitioners’ service in  the police department should be deemed to have been rendered  in the parent department entitling them to promotion.      If the Government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased  to  hold  the post in another cadre.   There  is  no revival of the lien during the period the employee continues to  hold  a post in another cadre.   Therefore,  during  the period  the  suspension is operative,  the  employee  cannot claim that he had been continuing in the post in the  parent cadre  and gaining experience.  When the rule is  clear  and specific that for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Superintendents,   Assistants,  Accountants,  Senior   Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and                                                        741 Taxation   Officers,   the  eligibility   qualification   is ’experience  of  working  ’as  such’  for  five  years’  the employee is not entitled to claim the experience in the  ex- cadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre.      In  the  light of what has been stated  above,  we  are unable  to uphold the decision of the High Court.  The  writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we allow the appeals. R.N.J.                                     Appeals allowed.                                                        742