Ashok Pal Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has basically challenged the validity of the order dated 26.11.1984 passed by the opposite party No. 3 (as contained in Annexure No. 9) so far as it relates to maintaining his lien on the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) in his department for only three years, order dated 16.03.2005 also passed by the opposite party No. 3 (as contained in Annexure No. 1) by which the petitioner's aforesaid lien has been terminated Ex -post Facto and also order dated 2.8.2010 which too has been passed by the opposite party No. 3 (as contained in Annexure No. 24) by which the petitioner has not been allowed his retiral benefits by treating him to be in service in the department of the opposite party No. 3 till the date of his superannuation. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was an Overseer/Junior Engineer in U.P. State Electricity Board presently succeeded by U.P. Power Corporation Limited (opposite party No. 3) which was a substantive and a permanent post on which he was confirmed on 16.03.1978. Subsequently, he was selected for the temporary post of Assistant Engineer in the department of the U.P. Harijan and Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Limited presently known as U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam, Limited (opposite party No. 4). He in consequence of the impugned order dated 26.11.1984 passed by the opposite party No. 3 was relieved from the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) on 3.12.1984 and joined on the post of the Assistant Engineer on 4.12.1984 in the aforesaid new department. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26.11.1984 passed by the opposite party No. 3 is patently illegal as no such order for maintaining his lien on the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) for a limited period of three years could have been passed. The said order is in contradiction to the provisions of Rule 14 -A (a) of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV (hereinafter referred to as "F.H.B. Rules") which provides that a Government servant's lien on a post in no circumstances can 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. His further submission is that the petitioner has neither given his resignation from the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) nor ever consented for termination of his lien on the said post. The post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) which he was holding in his parent department of the opposite party No. 3 was a substantive and a permanent post whereas, his subsequent posting on the post of the Assistant Engineer in the department of the opposite party No. 4 was though substantive but a temporary post on which no fresh lien was available to him. A Government servant is entitled for a lien only on a permanent post to which he has been appointed substantively. His further submission is that the resultant effect of the aforesaid order dated 26.11.1984 for maintaining his lien for a limited period of three years only and the order dated 16.03.2005 by which his permanent lien has been terminated is that he has been left without any lien or suspended lien on the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) in his parent department. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner before being relieved had already served on the post of the Junior Engineer (Civil) for more than 15 years and as such he is also legally entitled for grant of retiral benefits treating him to be in service on the said post in the department of opposite party No. 3 till the date of his superannuation.
(3.) BEFORE examining the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is considered necessary to take a glance of the impugned orders dated 26.11.1984 and 16.03.2005 passed by the opposite party No. 3.;