K. Kannan - (1.) THE petitioner's prayer in the writ petition is that during the period when he was absent from the institution where he was working and during which period he had taken up an assignment in foreign country, he shall be treated to have been in service for the purpose of future increments after he rejoined the service. The petitioner's case was that he was registered in the panel for foreign assignment with the Government of India and on being selected by the Government to work as a Lecturer in the Republic of Yeman, he was relieved from duty from his college. Though the initial contract period with the foreign country was for a period of one year, it was periodically extended upto four years. On his return to India, the petitioner's prayer for grant of future increments was denied on the ground that the four years period that he had left the college and when he served in a foreign country shall not be treated as duty period and he shall not, therefore, claim any increment that could accrue in future treating the said four years period as well as part of his service.
(2.) WHILE the petitioner would refer to the fact that in the letter of recommendation by the Government of India, the Union had recommended that his lien would be retained on the post held by him and if the management had no objection, he could be treated on deputation on foreign service, the management would plead that at the time when he applied for leave to go to a foreign country, he was informed that he would not be allowed increment for one year during the initial contract period. The further resolution which was made during the same year on 29.11.1976 was that he would be sanctioned leave without pay and that he would not be entitled to any increment during the said period and that the period will not be considered a duty leave. The college had elicited information with regard to the grant of increment to a Teacher who was on foreign assignment when the Kurukshetra University clarified that there was no provision for deputation in the Rules and the question of allowing increment while on deputation did not arise. The University was also clarifying that teacher who had been sanctioned study leave without pay, the benefit of increment might be given during the leave if he improved his technical or academic qualification. The exchange of communications would reveal that the assignment which the petitioner had taken was on a leave granted without pay or increment. The question of how the period of his absence shall be treated, if no Rules exist therefor ought to be regulated only by the contract between the parties. There is no difficulty in understanding the decision of the college or the University that he would not be paid salary during the said period. The petitioner does not make such a demand either. His contention is that this period of absence ought not to be taken as no service at all since he had retained his lien and he had not been taken as having resigned from the post and rejoined the service after his return from foreign country. To him, the relief must hinge on the understanding of what a person obtains when he has a lien in the post. Lien is a right to a post and he ought not to be taken as having resigned from his job to rejoin the same after his return. If lien should be given a full meaning, it should be only understood as right of resumption of duty instead of rejoining his duty. All that he could be denied, could be only the salary during the period which the petitioner himself is not claiming. The counsel for the petitioner also says that even the staff quarters had been retained by him and his family was allowed to continue to reside in the staff quarter. It could not have been the case as if he had left the job. Indeed, the Government of India which sponsored the petitioner had also indicated that during the period when he was permitted to undertake the foreign assignment, the management shall not accept his resignation under any circumstance. This again would indicate the fact that he was continued in service although not actually performing duties as a Lecturer in the college.
(3.) I would take the meaning of retention of lien as extending to the benefit of the petitioner that he would be entitled also to count the number of years of service including the period when he was on a foreign assignment and consistent with the observation that he would not be entitled to any salary, obviously his increments during the period when he was not in service would only be notional. However, for future increments on his resumption, the petitioner ought to be taken as being in service and he will be entitled to all benefits such as higher scale admissible by including the number of years of service of the four years period when he had gone out of service. A proper reckoning of the petitioner's entitlement shall, therefore, be made by the college and they shall apply to the Government for appropriate grants for being released to the petitioner. He is said to have retired and therefore, this computation would avail to his benefit for the purpose of his pension as well. The entire exercise shall be done by the college within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.;