IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL No.        OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP ( C ) No.6088 of 2007)

State of Rajasthan & Anr. …Appellants  

Versus

S.N.Tiwari & Ors.       …Respondents

With  

CIVIL APPEAL NO……… OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP ( C )No.7658 of 2007

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  common  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan,  

Jaipur Bench dated 29.11.2006 in DBC Special Appeal No.

606/01 and DBC Special  Appeal  No. 863/01 affirming the  

judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.  

3. The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State  

of Rajasthan required to be noticed are  as under:  

4. The sole respondent herein was initially appointed as  

Investigator  Grade-II  in  the Department  of  Economic and  

Industrial Surveys of Government of Rajasthan.  He joined  

his duty on 27.4.1959.  The respondent   along with other  

similarly situated employees were declared surplus by the  

Department  but  all  of  them  were  sent  to  work  in  the  

Directorate  of  Medical  and  Health  Services,  Jaipur.  On  

3.12.1980 while the respondent was working as a Statistical  

Inspector  under  Medical  and  Health  Department,  he  was  

appointed  on  purely  urgent  temporary  basis  as  a  

Homeopathic  Doctor  under  ESI  Scheme for  a  period of  6  

months or till the selection of a candidate by the Rajasthan  

Public Service Commission whichever was earlier.  He was  

2

accordingly  relieved  to  join  his  duty  as  a  Homeopathic  

Doctor w.e.f 6.12.1980.  The respondent continued in that  

capacity till his retirement on 31.8.1994 on attaining the age  

of  superannuation  since  no  alternative  arrangement  was  

made by the State of Rajasthan.  

5. The Directorate  of Economic and Statistics Department  

vide its letter dated 5.4.1991 addressed to the Director of  

ESI  Corporation,  Jaipur  requiring  it  to  obtain  the  

respondent’s option as to whether he wanted to return back  

to  the  services  of  the  said  department  or  to  be  made  

permanent  in  the  ESI  Corporation.   The  respondent  vide  

letter  dated  8.4.1991  addressed  to  the  Director  of  

Economics and Statistics exercised his option to have lien  

continued   in  the  Subordinate  Statistical  Services  for  the  

purposes of  protection of  financial  interests/promotions to  

higher  post   in  statistical  services.   The  respondent  also  

referred to and relied upon the Judgment of the Rajasthan  

High  Court  dated  2.9.1988  whereunder  the  Court  at  the  

3

instance of the respondent directed the parent department  

to  determine  the  year-wise  vacancies  and  to  make  

promotions  from  the  post  of  Statistical  Inspector  to  

Statistical  Assistant  in  accordance  with  Rajasthan  Service  

Rules.  

6. The respondent filed the writ petition No. 4832 of 1991  

with  a  prayer  seeking  directions  as  against  the  Health  

Department not to send him back to the parent department  

and allow him to  continue  to  work  on the  same post  as  

Homeopathic  Doctor  and fix  his  salary/pay  in  the  regular  

pay-scale attached to that post.  The respondent also filed  

writ petition No. 1663 of 1997 after 6 years of the aforesaid  

writ petition in the year 1997 seeking directions as against  

the Director  of  the Directorate  of  Economic and Statistics  

Department  to  consider  his  case  and  recompute  the  

vacancies  from  1964  and  onwards  and  to  give  him  all  

promotions,  seniority,  financial  benefits,  pay  fixation  etc.  

from the date, his immediate juniors have been promoted  

4

from the  post  of  Statistical  Inspector  to  Deputy  Director.  

The respondent also claimed the pensionary benefits by duly  

fixing his seniority and promotion etc.  

7. Both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing during  

which the respondent requested the High Court to dismiss  

the  writ  petition  No.  4832  of  1991  filed  by  him  as  not  

pressed.   The High Court after an elaborate consideration of  

the matter came to the right conclusion that the respondent  

herein was temporarily appointed to work as Homeopathic  

Doctor  in  Medical  and  Health  Services  Department  and  

always  retained  his  lien  in  the  Economic  and  Statistics  

Department and therefore entitled to reliefs as claimed by  

him in writ petition No. 1663 of 1997.  No relief was granted  

in writ petition No. 4832 of 1991 since the respondent/writ  

petitioner did not press for the same. Hence these appeals  

by the State of Rajasthan.  

5

8. Smt. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel  appearing for  

the  State  of  Rajasthan  inter  alia  submitted  that  the  

respondent having joined the Medical  and Health Services  

Department as Homeopathic Doctor continued on the same  

post till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of  

superannuation and that post of Homeopathic Doctor is not  

encadered in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1971  

and,  therefore,  he is  not  entitled to  claim promotion  and  

other  benefits  in  the  Economics  &  Statistics  Department  

after 1980.    

9. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the  

impugned  judgment  and  contended  that  the  lien  of  the  

respondent continued to be with parent department as he  

was never made permanent as Homeopathic Doctor in ESI  

Corporation where  he was deputed to work.  

10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by  

the counsel appearing for the respective parties.  

6

11. There  is  no  controversy  whatsoever  that  respondent  

employee  was  appointed  on  permanent  basis  in  the  

Directorate of  Economic and Statistics Department initially  

and thereafter sent to work in Medical & Health Department  

from there he was sent on deputation on urgent temporary  

basis as a Homeopathic Doctor under a Scheme for a period  

of  6  months  or  till  the selection  of  the candidate  by  the  

Rajasthan Public Service Commission whichever was earlier.  

Since no selection as such had taken place the respondent  

continued  in  the  said  post  until  his  attaining  the  age  of  

superannuation  i.e.  31.8.1994.   It  is  not  the case of  the  

State that any Competent Authority terminated the lien of  

the  respondent  in  the  parent  department.   There  is  no  

material  made  available  by  the  State  to  show  that  the  

respondent had been confirmed in any permanent post and  

that  he  was  holding  that  appointment  in  a  substantive  

capacity on permanent basis.  On the other hand, even while  

working  as  Homeopathic  Doctor  in  ESI  Corporation,  the  

7

respondent  employee  obtained  directions  as  against  the  

State and Directorate of Economics & Statistics Department  

to  determine  the  year-wise  vacancies  and  to  make  

promotions  from  the  post  of  Statistical  Inspector  to  

Statistical  Assistant  in  accordance  with  the  Rules.   That  

order attained its finality.  The same would demonstrate that  

the  respondent  employee  always  had  a  lien  in  the  

Department  of  Economics  and  Statistics.  It  may  be  

necessary  to  notice  Rule  18  of  Rajasthan  Service  Rules  

which is re-produced in its entirety hereunder:  

“18.  Termination  of  lien  –  (a)  A  Government  servant’s  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) A Government servant’s lien on a  post stands terminated on his acquiring  a  lien  on  a  permanent  post  (whether  under the Government or Central/other  State  Governments)  outside  the  cadre  on which he is borne.”

8

12. A  bare  reading  of  the  Rule  makes  it  clear  that  a  

government servant’s lien on a post   cannot be terminated  

in any circumstances even with his consent if it results in  

leaving  the  government  servant  without  a  lien  or  a  

suspended  lien  upon  a  permanent  post.   A  government  

servant’s  lien  on  a  post  stands  terminated  only  on  his  

acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on  

which he is borne.  It is not the case of the State that the  

respondent  employee  was  made  permanent  as  a  

Homeopathic  Doctor  in  ESI  Corporation.   The  respondent  

employee did not acquire any lien in the ESI Corporation.  

The question of termination of lien does not arise since the  

respondent employee did not acquire a lien on a permanent  

post outside the cadre on which he is borne.  

13. It is very well settled that when a person with a lien  

against the post is appointed substantively to another post,  

only then he acquires a lien against the latter post.  Then  

and then alone the lien against the previous post disappears.  

9

Lien connotes the right of a civil  servant to hold the post  

substantively  to  which  he  is  appointed.   The  lien  of  a  

government employee over the previous post ends if he is  

appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis.  

In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new  

permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of  

lien over the previous permanent post.  This Court in Ram  

Lal  Khurana  Vs.  State  of  Punjab  [  (1989)  4  SCC 99]  

observed  that lien is not a word of art.  It just connotes the  

right  of  a  civil  servant  to  hold  the  post  substantively  to  

which he is appointed.  

14. The term “lien” comes from the Latin term “ligament”  

meaning “binding”.  The meaning of lien in Service Law is  

different  from other  meanings  in  the  context  of  contract,  

common  law,  equity,  etc.  The  lien  of  a  government  

employee  in  Service  Law  is  the  right  of  the  government  

employee to hold a permanent post substantively to which  

he  has  been  permanently  appointed.  [See  –  Triveni  

10

Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P.  (1992 Supp (1) SCC  

524) ].  

15. The  High  Court  upon  appreciation  of  the  material  

available  on  record  found  that  lien  of  the  respondent  

employee always continued in the department of Economics  

&  Statistics.  His  urgent  temporary  appointment  as  

Homeopathic Doctor vide order dated 3.12.1980 was not a  

substantive appointment for any definite period.  The mere  

fact that the respondent employee continued to work for a  

long period itself would not result in loss of lien in the parent  

department of Economics & Statistics.  That even after the  

respondent employee joined as Homeopathic Doctor in ESI  

Corporation  in  1980  the  parent  department  treated  the  

respondent employee as belonging to its  own cadre.   We  

find no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court.   

16. Be it  noted that no objections were raised when the  

respondent  employee  gave  his  option  on  8.4.1991  duly  

11

informing all the concerned that his lien in the Subordinate  

Statistical Service, had to be maintained for the purposes of  

promotions to higher posts/protection of financial interests  

etc.  In such view of the matter the respondent employee  

always had his lien in his parent department.  The State at  

this stage cannot be allowed to turn round and say that the  

respondent employee did not retain lien against his post in  

the parent department.  

17. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.  In the  

facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to  

costs.   

……………………………………J.  ( S.B. Sinha )

……………………………………J.  ( B. Sudershan Reddy )

……………………………………J.                                        ( Mukundakam Sharma )

New Delhi;  March 16, 2009

12

13