SAVINDER KAUR Vs. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order of 9th January, 2017 (Annexure P-1) declines petitioner's request for retention of lien on the post of Deputy Manager (HR) in Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as IPGCL). Upon submission of technical resignation from the post of Deputy Manager (HR), petitioner was relieved by respondentIPGCL on 30th November, 2016 to enable her to join Pawan Hans Limited on probation for a period of one year. It is so evident from Offer of Appointment of 3rd October, 2016 (Annexure P-4) made by Pawan Hans Limited. It is for this reason that petitioner while resigning had sought retention of lien in respondent-IPGCL for a period of one year. It is so reflected in technical resignation (Annexure P-5). RespondentIPGCL vide its Office Order of 30th November, 2016 (Annexure P-6) had simply accepted the resignation of petitioner and had relieved her to enable her to join M/s. Pawan Hans Limited. Since the relieving letter (Annexure P-6) was silent about retention of lien, therefore, petitioner vide letter of 5th December, 2016 (Annexure P-7) had written to respondent-IPGCL to intimate the status of retention of lien to her. Respondent-IPGCL vide its letter of 15th December, 2016 (Annexure P-8) had informed petitioner that the competent authority has not accepted her request for retention of her lien. Thereafter, petitioner vide letter of 16th December, 2016 (Annexure P-9) had again requested respondent-IPGCL for grant of lien as she wanted to continue to work with respondentIPGCL. Reminder of 9th January, 2017 was sent by petitioner to respondent-IPGCL, but to no avail. Petitioner vide letter of 13th January, 2017 (Annexure P-10) had sought withdrawal of resignation from respondent-IPGCL with immediate effect.

(2.) According to petitioner's counsel, aforesaid letter of 13th January, 2017 (Annexure P-10) seeking withdrawal of the technical resignation was not responded to by respondent-IPGCL. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite repeated reminders on 27th January, 14th March and 25th April, 2017 (Annexure P-11 colly.), there was no response to petitioner's aforesaid letter (Annexure P-10) seeking withdrawal of her technical resignation. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that instructions on Technical Resignation and Lien have been issued by the Government vide Office Memorandum (henceforth referred to as 'O.M.') of 26th December, 2013 (Annexure P-12), which mandate that if the Government servant has proceeded on 'immediate absorption basis to service outside his cadre/post in the government' then only, there will be no lien.

(3.) It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that petitioner had not gone to Pawan Hans Limited on 'immediate absorption basis' and so, petitioner had inherent right to retain her lien and she had exercised her lien vide letter of 13th January, 2017 (Annexure P-10). Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon O.M. of 17th August, 2016 on the subject of Technical Resignation and Lien. Reliance is also placed by petitioner's counsel upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Department of Telecommunications v. Satya Prakash & Ors,2016 SCCOnLine(Del) 3496 to submit that lien in the parent department is retained where an employee goes on probation outside the service.