INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD Vs. SAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act is to the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking retention of lien to the post of Deputy Manager(HR) in Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited(hereinafter referred as "IPGCL")/ parent company was allowed.

(2.) The brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent/Savinder Kaur was appointed as Executive trainee (HR) on 30.06.2008. After completion of her training, she was appointed as an Assistant Manager(HR), and she stood was confirmed on 30.06.2009. On 30.06.2013, she was promoted as Deputy Manager(HR) in the appellant company. The respondent applied for the post of Assistant General Manager/AGM(HR) in M/S Pawan Hans Ltd., a Central Public Enterprises, in response to an advertisement through proper channel and in respect to which No Objection Certificate(NOC) was granted by the appellant company. After receiving an offer of appointment to the post of AGM(HR) from M/s Pawan Hans Ltd on 03.10.2016, the respondent submitted her technical resignation with effect from 01.11.2016 in IPGCL. In view of the request made in the resignation letter dated 01.11.2016, she was relieved from her services in IPGCL vide Office order dated 30.11.2016. The respondent joined the services with M/S Pawan Hans Ltd. Vide letter dated 05.12016 she inquired about her status of retention of lien in the IPGCL. The respondent was informed that her request was rejected by the IPGCL vide its order dated 15.12016. On 16.12016, the respondent sent another letter requesting IPGCL regarding the status of lien as the same has not been informed to her after being relieved on technical resignation. The appellant vide order dated 09.01.2017 informed the respondent that the request for retention of lien had been denied as the same is not tenable as per rules. Several reminders were sent to IPGCL for the retention of lien and on 13.01.2017, the respondent sought withdrawal of technical resignation from IPGCL with immediate effect. Despite several reminders and requests, the same was not responded by the appellant company. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before this court seeking retention of lien to the post of Deputy manager(HR) in IPGCL, and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant company.

(3.) Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Single Judge committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent vide its order dated 11.01.2018 and that such findings were based more on hypothetical assumption of facts, based on mere conjecture and surmises; that after receiving offer of appointment from M/S Pawan Hans Ltd., an unconditional resignation was rendered by the respondent and the respondent joined the said company without ensuring whether the retention of lien was granted to her by IPGCL; that the appointment of the respondent in M/S Pawan Hans Ltd. was on immediate absorption basis hence no lien was to be retained by the appellant company; that the appellant company and the M/S Pawan Hans Ltd. are two distinct entities and M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. is not a Department of the Government, therefore, no inference of automatic retention of lien can be drawn with the previous employer; that the respondent's request for retention of lien was specifically dealt with by the appellant company at the time of acceptance of resignation; that unless the retention of lien is communicated to the employee by the employer, it cannot be granted by implication. In order to substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the cases of Union of India v. Lt. Col Komal Charan and Others. reported in, (1992) 3 SCR 259, Jai Prakash Wadhwa and Others. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn & Anr reported in, (1997) 11 SCC 174, Department of Telecommunications v. Satya Prakash and Others. reported in, (2016) LawSuit(Del) 3539.