Summary
The Court held that a university employee retained his lien on his confirmed Office Superintendent post while serving on probation as Assistant Registrar under an appointment later quashed. Relieving him with permission to take the new appointment did not amount to resignation from public service. He received notional seniority, promotion and pensionary benefits at par with juniors, having retired without working on the promoted post.
Issues
- Whether the relieving order amounted to resignation from public service.
- Whether lien on the earlier confirmed post continued without a separate request while the new appointment remained probationary.
- What consequential relief was appropriate after retirement.
Provisions considered
- Rule 252(b), read with Office Memorandum dated 22 January 1972, Karnataka Civil Service RulesTaking another appointment with proper permission did not constitute resignation from public service, and the relieving order protected the employee’s past service. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 20, 21)
- Rule 20, Note 4, Karnataka Civil Service RulesThe employee’s lien on his earlier confirmed appointment continued until permanent absorption or confirmation in the new cadre; no separate representation was necessary here. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)
Held
- The appellant had been confirmed on the original post and was never substantively appointed or permanently absorbed as Assistant Registrar, remaining a probationer during litigation. His earlier lien therefore continued under Rule 20 Note 4. (¶¶ 3, 14, 15, 17, 18)
- The University could not deny continued lien merely because no representation requesting its preservation had been made. The applicable rule itself protected the employee while the new appointment remained probationary. (¶ 19)
- A relieving order permitting another appointment under Rule 252(b) was not resignation from public service. The appellate judgment’s contrary approach was unsustainable. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- After superannuation, complete justice required service benefits including seniority, consequential promotion and pensionary benefits at par with juniors, but on a notional basis because the appellant had not worked on the promoted post. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge’s order restored with modifications granting continued lien and notional service, promotion and pensionary benefits at par with juniors.