LI Network
Published on: 8 September 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court has clarified that under Karnataka Civil Service Rules, accepting another government appointment with proper permission does not constitute resignation from public service.
This pronouncement was made in a case where the appellant challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga.
The High Court had set aside the Single Judge’s order, which ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing his lien over his previous post and directing the respondent-University to provide service and pensionary benefits.
A two-Judge Bench consisting of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated, “The intention of the said rule is clear, viz., to protect the past service of the government servant in cases where the government servant is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation period or for any other reason. …
So far as the question of the ‘relieving order’ being treated as resignation is concerned, in terms of Rule 252(b) of KCS Rules, it cannot be treated as resignation. The said Rule makes it clear that if another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation from public service.”
Factual Background of the case:
The appellant was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant at Bangalore University in 1972 and later transferred to Gulbarga University in 1981. Over the years, he was promoted to the position of ‘Assistant Office Superintendent’ and eventually to ‘Office Superintendent.’ Following a resolution, he was retained in his previous post of Office Superintendent, and his pay scale was adjusted accordingly.
Subsequently, the appellant requested the University to ‘re-fix his seniority’ in the Office Superintendent cadre and sought promotion to the vacant Assistant Registrar position on par with his junior colleagues. After receiving no response to his requests and reminders, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was initially granted. However, the Division Bench overturned the Single Bench’s order, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court clarified that, according to established legal principles, the ‘lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when they are substantively appointed, confirmed, or permanently absorbed in another post. In other cases, the lien remains with the previous post.
The Court emphasized that the respondent-University had not permanently absorbed or confirmed the appellant in the new post. Consequently, the University’s argument that the appellant could not claim his lien on the previous post after its cancellation, due to the absence of any request for its continuation, was not valid, as per Rule 20 Note 4 of KCS Rules.
The Court further explained that, as per the language of the Rule, the government servant’s lien on the previous post remains protected until their probation period on the new post is completed.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, nullified the Division Bench’s order, and reinstated the Single Judge’s order.
