http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LABHU RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1976

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR   98            1977 SCR  (1) 832  1976 SCC  (4) 339

ACT:             Punjab Civil Service Rules, vol. 1, Rides 2.49 and  3.10         to   3.16,--Junior Vernacular Cadre teachers officiating  in         senior  vernacular cadre entitled to benefit of  their  sub-         stantive posts.

HEADNOTE:             The  respondents,  teachers  of  the  Junior  vernacular         cadre, Punjab, were promoted to the senior vernacular  cadre         temporarily.  After the expiry of their probationary period,         they were not confirmed, but continued to work in the senior         cadre and their names were dropped from the junior  vernacu-         lar  cadre.  Mean while, other teachers, junior to  the  re-         spondents in the junior cadre were offered better opportuni-         ties of being taken in a "selection grade".  The respondents         filed     a writ petition in the High Court contending  that         they  were  entitled to the opportunity of moving  into  the         selection  grade,  as  they were  neither  probationers  nor         confirmed  members but were only officiating in  the  senior         cadre while retaining their substantive places and liens  in         the junior cadre.  The High Court allowed the writ.         Dismissing the appeal the Court.             HELD:  The state was unable to substantiate the  submis-         sion that the petitioners-respondents became probationers in         the  senior vernacular cadre. According to the rules,  their         lien  in the junior vernacular cadre was retained  by  them,         and,  it could not be suspended by the mere fact  that  they         were performing the duties of teachers working in the senior         vernacular cadre. [836 D-E]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal.  No.  1745  of         1968.         (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order    dated         13-10-1967  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court    in         Civil   Writ No. 1113 of 1966).         O.P. Sharma, for the appellants.         S.  K, Mehta, K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri, for the  Respond-         ents,         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

           BEG,  J.--The State of Punjab has come up   by   special         leave against the judgment  of a Division  Bench of the High         Court  o[ Punjab & Haryana allowing the Writ petition of the         respondents  who, it is admitted by the State, are  teachers         of  the  Junior  Vernacular grade working, on the  dates  on         which  they filed the Writ petition, as "promotees"  in  the         senior  vernacular grade temporarily but had not  been  con-         firmed  there.  It appears that the only difference  between         the junior vernacular cadre and the senior vernacular  cadre         is  that  those who teach lower classes were placed  in  the         "junior"  cadre and those who teach higher classes  were  in         the "senior vernacular cadre". But, for some reason, working         in  senior  vernacular  cadre was  considered  a  promotion.         After  consideration of the whole position, the  two  grades         were  integrated by the Government from  1st October.  1957,         with  retrospective  effect, under  the  Punjab  Educational         Service         833         (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Service Rules, 1961.   This         meant  that the Government recognised that both  the  cadres         should  be really considered as one and that there  were  no         acceptable grounds for  a differentiation.  Nevertheless, it         appears that the names of the petitioners were dropped  from         the  junior  vernacular cadre as they had been  working  for         more than the probationary period in the  senior  vernacular         cadre.   It is urged that it must be deemed that  they  were         confirmed  in  the senior  vernacular  cadre  automatically.         However,  they had to be "probationers" in the senior  cadre         for such a result to enure.  We fail to see how they  become         "probationers" there.         Curiously,  the prospects of those who were  not  considered         "promoted" to the senior vernacular cadre and were junior to         the petitioners respondents in that cadre, improved as  they         were   offered opportunities of being taken in a  "selection         grade".   But,  no such opportunities were  offered  to  the         petitioners  on the ground that they had been  removed  from         the  junior vernacular cadre.  The names of the  petitioners         respondents had been automatically dropped from the cadre in         which  they held their liens having  been  appointed   there         initially permanently.             The  High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the  peti-         tioners  respondents  are entitled to the benefit  of  their         substantive posts, which were still in the junior vernacular         cadre, as they were never confirmed in the senior vernacular         cadre whatever may be the sentimental satisfaction of  being         considered  as  persons  "promoted" to and  working  in  the         "senior  vernacular cadre".  Subsequent events  showed  that         those  who  are  junior to the petitioners,  and,  for  that         reason,  did  not  get the opportunity  of  serving  in  the         "senior"  cadre,  had better opportunities offered  to  them         without any reasonable ground of discrimination between  the         two  cadres  except that the petitioners  were  seniors  and         could consider themselves "promoted" because  they had  been         performing  the  duties of teachers of the  "senior"  cadre.         The  petitioners,  after discovering that  those   who  were         junior to them and had, therefore, not been given the oppor-         tunity   of  serving in the senior vernacular cadre,  had  a         better  opportunity  of  moving into  the  selection  grade,         which had not been offered to them,  applied  for this  very         opportunity  as  they still continued in  their  substantive         posts which were in the junior vernacular cadre.  They  took         up the correct position that they had merely been  officiat-         ing   in the senior vernacular cadre but their right  places         were in the junior vernacular cadre. The mere fact that they         worked  in the senior cadre for longer periods  than  proba-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       tioners would  could not give them the status of either more         probationers or persons Confirmed  in the senior  vernacular         cadre.   They could not, for that reason alone, be  deprived         of  the  benefits of their substantive appointments  in  the         junior  vernacular cadre.  Hence, their Writ Petitions  were         allowed   and   they  were afforded all the  benefits  which         would have accrued to them as members of the junior vernacu-         lar  cadre  to which they did not really  cease  to  belong.         Moreover, as already pointed out, the Government had  itself         considered  the position and had integrated the  two  cadres         into one with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1957.         834             The  position  of the petitioners appears to  us  to  be         fully covered by the following rules contained in the Punjab         Civil Services Rules-Volume I:                             "3.10. Unless in any  case it be  other-                       wise  distinctly provided the whole time of  a                       Government  servant is at the disposal of  the                       Government  which  pays.  him and  he  may  be                       employed  in  any manner required   by  proper                       authority,  without claim or additional  remu-                       neration, whether the services required of him                       are  such as would ordinarily  be  remunerated                       from  Union or State revenues,  or  from   the                       revenues of a local fund.                       Substantive Appointment and Lien.                             3.11. (a) Two or more Government   serv-                       ants  cannot be appointed substantively to the                       same permanent post at the same time.                             (b)  A  Government  servant  cannot   be                       appointed substantively except as a  temporary                       measure, to two or more permanent posts at the                       same time.                             (c)  A  Government  servant  cannot   be                       appointed  substantively  to a post  on  which                       another Government  servant holds a lien.                             3.12. Unless in any case it be otherwise                       provided in these rules, 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.                             3.13. Unless his lien is suspended under                       rule  3.14  or transferred under rule 3.16,  a                       Government  servant  holding  substantively  a                       permanent post retains a lien on that post--                       (a) while performing the duties of that post;                             (b) while on foreign service, or holding                       a  temporary post, or officiating  in  another                       post;                             (c) during joining time on  transfer  to                       another  post, unless he is  transferred  sub-                       stantively  to a post on lower _pay, in  which                       case  his lien is transferred to the new  post                       from  the date on which he is relieved of  his                       duties  in the old post;                       (d) except as provided in Note below while  on                       leave;                       and                       (e) while under suspension.                             3.14.  (a) A competent  authority  shall                       suspend the lien of a Government servant on  a                       permanent post which he                       835                       holds  substantively, if he is appointed in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

                     substantive capacity:                       (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 servant would hold a  lien,                       had his lien not been suspended under rule.                       (b) A competent authority may, at its  option,                       suspend the lien of a Government servant  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 (a) of this rule, is  trans-                       ferred, whether in a substantive or  officiat-                       ing 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 than three years.                           (c) Notwithstanding anything contained  in                       clause (a) or (b)  of this rule, a  Government                       servant’s  lien  on a tenure post may,  in  no                       circumstances,  be   suspended.    If  he   is                       appointed substantively to another   permanent                       post,  his  lien on the tenure  post  must  be                       terminated.                           (d)  If a Government servant’s lien  on  a                       post  is  suspended under clause (a) or (b) of                       this rule, the post may be filled substantive-                       ly,  and the Government servant  appointed  to                       hold it substantively shall acquire a lien  on                       it:  Provided that the arrangements  shall  be                       reversed  as  soon as the suspended  lien  re-                       vives.                           (e) A Government servant’s lien which  has                       been  suspended under clause (a) of this  rule                       shall  revive as soon as he ceases to  hold  a                       lien  on  a post of the  nature  specified  in                       sub-clause (1), (2) or (3) of that clause.                           (f) A Government servant’s lien which  has                       been  suspended under clause (b) of this  rule                       shall  revive  as soon as he ceases to  be  on                       deputation out of  India or on foreign service                       or  to hold a post in another cadre:  Provided                       that a suspended lien shall not revive because                       the Government servant takes leave if there is                       reason to believe that he will, on return from                       leave,  continue  to be on deputation  out  of                       India or on foreign service or to hold a  post                       in  another  cadre  and the  total  period  of                       absence  on duty will not fall short of  three                       years  or  that he will hold  substantively  a                       post of the nature specified ’in sub-clause (1                       ), (2) or (3) of clause (a).                           3.15.  (a)  Except as provided  in  clause                       (c) of this rule and in note under rule  3.13,                       a Government servant’s                       836                       lien  on a post may, in no  circumstances,  be                       terminated,  even  with his  consent,  if  the                       result will be to leave him without a lien  or                       a suspended lien upon a permanent post.                              (b) In a case covered by sub-clause (2)                       of clause (a) rule 3.14 the suspended lien may                       not,   except  on the written request  of  the

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

                     Government  servant concerned,  be  terminated                       while  the  Government  servant   remains   in                       Government service.                              (c)  Notwithstanding the provisions  of                       rule  3.14(a). the lien of a Government  serv-                       ant  holding  substantively a  permanent  post                       shah be terminated on his appointment substan-                       tively  to the post of Chief Engineer  of  the                       Public Works Department.                             3.16. Subject to the provisions of  rule                       3.17,  a competent authority may  transfer  to                       another permanent post  in the same cadre  the                       lien  of  a  Government  servant  who  is  not                       performing  the duties of a post to which  the                       lien  relates,  even  if that  lien  has  been                       suspended."                           According to the rules set out above,  the                       lien of the petitioners in the junior vernacu-                       lar  cadre was retained by them and  it  could                       not  be suspended by the mere fact  that  they                       were performing the duties of teachers working                       in’  the  senior vernacular  cadre.    Nothing                       beyond  this  was disclosed by  the  facts  of                       these cases.                       The definition of a probationer, given in rule                       2.49 is as follows:                             "2.49.  Probationer means  a  Government                       servant employed on probation in or against  a                       substantive vacancy in the cadre of a  depart-                       ment.   This term does  not,  however, cover a                       Government servant who holds  substantively  a                       permanent  post  in  a cadre  and   is  merely                       appointed on probation’ to another post".             Learned Counsel for the State was unable to substantiate         the submission that the petitioners respondents were  merely         probationers  the  senior vernacular cadre  and  not  really         persons whose substantive posts were in the junior  vernacu-         lar cadre, appointed to perform the duties of persons put in         another cadre.   Their duties in  the senior cadre  involved         teaching   somewhat   higher   classes.    This   additional         experience could not reasonably be looked up as a  disquali-         fication  for  the selection grade.   The  High  Court  had,         therefore, given the petitioner-respondents the benefits  of         the  cadre on which their names should have  been  retained.         Moreover,  this is not a question which can arise  again  as         the two different cadres have been merged with retrospective         effect from 1st October, 1957. It meant that they were enti-         tled to be considered for the selection grade, and, if  they         satisfy  the requirements for selection to get the  benefits         of it.   Consequently, we dismiss this appeal with costs.         M.R.                                          Appeal    dis-         missed.         837