Union Of INDIA And Ors vs. Shri Nagesh Sisodia And Anr

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that though it is a matter of fact that respondent No.1 had gone to the new department after taking due permission from the parent department i.e. O/o Commissioner, GGST, Goa and as he was working on regular basis, his lien was directed to be maintained for two years initially which was later on extended twice for a period of 1 year each time but as in the new department, he could not get PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.14 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case respondent No.1 has not been able to seek confirmation in the new department, his lien cannot be maintained for all times to come, which factor has been ignored by the learned Tribunal while directing that the lien of the respondent be maintained by O/o Commissioner, CGST, Goa either till he is confirmed in the new department or he is allowed to join back keeping in view his own request.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

It may be noticed that once an employee was working on a regular basis in a particular department and such employee is selected in another department, his lien has to be maintained till such employee is either confirmed in the new department or is reverted back to his parent department. Such lien cannot be terminated on the ground that the same was retained only for a period of more than 3 years during which the employee has to get confirmed by the new department. The Tribunal has rightly held that in order to secure the interest of such employee who was a confirmed employee of the parent department, in case such an employee has not been confirmed in the new department, his lien cannot be terminated by the parent department i.e. O/o Commissioner, CGST, Goa especially when the respondent herein had already written back to his parent department that he intends to join back his parent department after leaving the new department. PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.09.14 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, once lien was terminated only due to the fact that it was to be retained for a specific period as mentioned in para 3.3 of the office Memorandum dated 24.11.2022 and 17.08.2016:, the Tribunal is right in directing that the termination of such lien is incorrect and the lien of the respondent be maintained and his application to join back the parent department be considered. The said directions given is not perverse to any service rule or settled principles of law.

Reliance being placed upon office memorandum dated 17.08.2016 that the lien will stand terminated or the Government employee has to resign from the parent department in case not confirmed in the new department within a period of 3 years, cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that such employee will lose job in the parent department and even if in the new department, services of the employee concerned has not been confirmed. This can cause serious prejudice to an employee. Hence, the directions given by the learned Tribunal is perfectly valid and legal.

In view of above, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Present writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.