SANJEEV CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), vide which the Original Application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. It has been further prayed that the order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure A/1) and 28.09.2006 (Annexure A/2) passed by respondent No.2 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent to accept the request of the petitioner for reversion to his parent department with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Petitioner Sanjeev Chauhan, while working as Senior Technical Assistant 'B' with respondent No.2, submitted an application for the post of Junior Engineer with respondent No.3 (Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh) on 30.05.2005. The said application was duly forwarded by respondent No.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer by respondent No.3 vide appointment letter dated 07.02.2006. The petitioner submitted the technical resignation dated 15.02.2006 and he was relieved to join the new assignment w.e.f. 06.03.2006 with the benefit of counting his past service for pension in the new department under Rule 26(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules'). No order qua retention of his lien was passed by respondents No.1 & 2. As per Fundamental Rule 13 and Government of India Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1967, whenever a regular employee undertakes fresh appointment, the parent department is required to retain his lien for two years. So, the lien of the petitioner was required to be retained. It is further pleaded that the petitioner submitted an application dated 08.08.2006 for reversion to his parent department as he was not granted benefit of the past service in the new establishment. His request was declined by respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.09.2006. In consequence of his further correspondence the same stand was reiterated vide letter dated 13.08.2013. Ultimately, the petitioner filed the Original Application No.1334-CH-2013 before the learned Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.09.2014. Hence this civil writ petition.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner was contested by respondents No.1 & 2 before learned Tribunal on the grounds inter alia that under Order No.1, blow Fundamental Rule 14-A, this rule applies only so long as a Government servant remains in the Government service i.e. where an employee has migrated from one Government organization to another Government organization, only then the benefit of the aforesaid rule is available. It was further pleaded that petitioner who has joined the Corporation, is not entitled to the benefit of retention of lien. In view of this position, the request of the petitioner was declined. It was further pleaded that on acceptance of technical resignation, there was no provision of retention of lien. With these pleas, respondents No.1 & 2 have pleaded for dismissal of the Original Application.