JUDGMENT 1. - This is a very unfortunate case where although the petitioner has retired on March 19, 1974, yet his lien has not yet been determined by the Government till date. 2. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of this case stated in brief are as follows : The petitioner in the present case was initially appointed as Vernacular Clerk in the former Jaipur State with effect from Sept 2, 1938. Thereafter the petitioner came to hold various posts which need not be mentioned here, as I do not think them relevant for the disposal of this petition. When the former Jaipur Stale was merged in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was transferred as Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Premier, as he was designated then, and was appointed as Office Superintendent with effect from November 3, 1949 after having been selected by a Screening Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary and the Principal Private Secretary to the then Premier. The petitioner worked as an Office Superintendent in the Secretariat from November 3, 1949 to October 27, 1952 and was put in the grade of Rs. 125-10-225-EB-15-350 in the Unified Pay Sca1e Rules, 1950 and was also given two increments in the years 1951 and 1952. In pursuance of the Government circular dated, January 17, 1952 (Ex 5) and the Government circular dated May 21, 1952 (Ex 6), the case of the petitioner was referred to the Screening Committee along with other employees of the Secretariat. The petitioner was not selected by the Screening Committee and so he was transferred in the Maharaja College and then in the office of the CID Police and ultimately in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Jaipur in October, 1952. It may be stated here that the transfer of the petitioner in all the above mentioned departments was on temporary basis. In the office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, the petitioner was fixed in the grade Rs. 150-250 which was the grade of Office Superintendent Grade III. In the year 1956 the petitioner's case along with other non selected Office Superintendents was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for screening in pursuance of Order Ex 10. By that order the Government directed that candidates for permanent fixation as Office Superintendent in various departments would be selected by the Raj Public Service Commission. In the year 1956 the petitioner's case along with other non selected Office Superintendents was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for screening in pursuance of Order Ex 10. By that order the Government directed that candidates for permanent fixation as Office Superintendent in various departments would be selected by the Raj Public Service Commission. In pursuance of the aforesaid order Ex 10 the petitioners, case was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which recommended the petitioner's name for substantive appointment in the office of the Superintendent Grade III on November 6, 1956. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the Rajasthan Secretariat and on being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission he should have been substantively appointed as Office Superintendent Grade III in the Rajasthan Secretariat, but he was not appointed in substantive capacity in the Rajasthan Secretariat. On the other hand, the petitioner was shunted off to the office of the Collector, Jaipur and that too in officiating capacity. From the office of the Collector the petitioner was again transferred to the Land Records Office, there too in an officiating capacity. In the year 1957 the petitioner was sent to the erst-while Electrical and Mechanical Department and thereafter he was sent to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. In all the departments the petitioner was never permanently absorbed, but his appointment was made in officiating capacity. The petitioner further averred in the writ petition that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan issued an order on, January 28, 1960 (Ex. 11) whereby it wrote to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan to absorb the petitioner permanently, but the Chief Engineer declined to do so on the ground that the petitioner was never permanently absorbed in his office and so he was unable to substantively appoint the petitioner in his office. It has been further averred by the petitioner that he has been continuously making representations for his permanent absorption in the Rajasthan Secretariat in the ground that he was a permanent employee in the Rajasthan Secretariat and his lien still subsisted in the Rajasthan Secretariat. The Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat, however, took the stand that the petitioner had no lien in, the Secretariat and that the petitioner's lien would be either in the Land Records department or in the Irrigation department. The Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat, however, took the stand that the petitioner had no lien in, the Secretariat and that the petitioner's lien would be either in the Land Records department or in the Irrigation department. The petitioner thereupon approached the Land Records department & the irrigation department, but both the aforesaid departments declined to recognise the petitioner's lien in the respective department as the petitioner was never permanently absorbed in any of the department. 4. It transpires from the allegations made in the writ petition that the Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat requisitioned the service book of the petitioner from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, who while sending the service book informed the Registrar that the petition had not been absorbed permanently in any department and according to the Chief Engineer the petitioners lien subsisted in the Rajasthan Secretariat. In reply to that letter the Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat informed the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation by his letter dated November 12, 1964 (Ex 17) that after the merger the lien of the petitioner did not subsist in the Secretariat. The Registrar in his aforesaid letter observed that as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of selection in the year 1954 on the lower post, the question of lien in the Secretariat did not arise. This copy of Registrar's letter addressed to the Superintending Engineer was supplied to the petitioner somewhere in the year 1967. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on November 14, 1967 wherein he complained that he was never given an opportunity of selection on a lower post in the Secretariat, although the persons junior to him in the Secretarial had been given opportunity and they had been duly selected in the Secretariat. The Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat thereupon addressed the letter dated November 1, 1969 to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Rajasthan along with a copy of the circular dated February 1, 1954 which permitted the non selected Office Superintendents of the Secretariat to a apply for the post of lower cadre in the Secretariat and inquired of him as to whether the petitioner was given the copy of that circular and his acknowledgement taken. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation in his turn vide his letter dated November 28, 1969 asked the Superintending Engineer to enquire and report as to whether the petitioner was informed of the circular dated February 1, 1954. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation in his turn vide his letter dated November 28, 1969 asked the Superintending Engineer to enquire and report as to whether the petitioner was informed of the circular dated February 1, 1954. The Superintending Engineer in reply to the letter of the Chief Engineer informed him that aforesaid circular was never received in his office and, therefore, there was no question of delivering the same to the petitioner. 5. The question of determination of the petitioner was kept pending and all sort of uncertainty was created in regard to his lien. The petitioner went on making representations for finally determining his lien and as a result of which the case of the petitioner was referred to the Appointments Department. It has been averred in para 6 (e) of the writ petition by the petitioner (at page 46 A) that the petitioner was asked by the Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat vide Ex. 20 to see the Deputy Secretary, Appointments `B' Department. The petitioner in compliance of that letter met the Deputy Secretary and explained the whole case to him in detail. It has been further alleged by the petitioner in para 6(e) of the writ petition that the Deputy Secretary, Appointments Department recorded a note to the effect that the opportunity of second Screening under the Govt. circular of February 1, 1954 was not given to the petitioner and it was proposed by the Deputy Secretary that the petitioner be made substantive Upper Division Clerk in the Rajasthan Secretariat from the year 1954 as per the Govt order No. F 7(2) Estt/51/Vol.III dated February 1, 1954. The Deputy Secretariat, further suggested that the opinion of the Finance Department may also be invited. According to the allegations made in para 6 (f) of the writ petition the Deputy Secretary submitted the case to the Special Secretary, Appointment Department, who agreed with the view of the Deputy Secretary, appointment (B) Department and the Deputy Secretary, Appointment (A II) Department. The Special Secretary further came to observe that if the petitioner had a claim in the Secretariat, the same must be given to him and there was no point to saying that the he is working in the Rajasthan Canal Project. The Special Secretary further came to observe that if the petitioner had a claim in the Secretariat, the same must be given to him and there was no point to saying that the he is working in the Rajasthan Canal Project. He, however, according to the allegations made in the writ petition pointed out that since the matter involved the creation of supernumerary post of Upper Division Clerk in the Rajasthan Secretariat, the case may be sent to the Finance Department for its comments. According to writ petition allegations (vide para 6 g) the petitioner's case was sent to the Finance Department, which took a different view of the matter and sent the case back to the Appointment (B) Department, which in turn referred the case to the Appointment (A II) Department. The case was again examined by Shri D. Goswami the then Deputy Secretary, Appointment (A II) Department. The Deputy Secretary observed that it is the look out of the Administrate Department to fix and employee in any department. He further observed that when the Special Secretary, Appointment Department, who is the final authority in the matters of integration of employees of covenanting States, has directed that the petitioner may be fixed up in the Rajasthan Secretariat in the process of integration, there could be no objection from the Finance Department. It is alleged that the Deputy Secretary also in his note observed that the case was simply sent to the Finance Department as the proposal involved the creation of one post of Upper Division Clerk from the year 1954 in the process of integration. He therefore, submitted the case with the above note to the Special Secretary, Appointment Department, who in his turn again sent the case to the Finance Department for creation of a supernumerary post. It has been further averred in para 6 (h) of the writ petition that in the meantime the petitioner's case was called for by the then Finance Minister Shri Shobha Ram for his perusal. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the Finance Minister was satisfied that a great injustice has been done to the petitioner by not integrating the petition, in the Raj Service & by not absorbing him permanently in any Govt. department and he asked the Deputy Secretary, Finance Dept. (Rules, to discuss the case with him. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the Finance Minister was satisfied that a great injustice has been done to the petitioner by not integrating the petition, in the Raj Service & by not absorbing him permanently in any Govt. department and he asked the Deputy Secretary, Finance Dept. (Rules, to discuss the case with him. It is alleged that the discussions took place between the Finance Minister & the Deputy Secretary, Finance Dept. (Rules) and it was decided that the legal aspect of the case be also considered before sending the opinion of the Finance Department. Accordingly the then Finance Minister Shri Shobharam directed that the legal opinion from the Law Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan on the point as to whether denying of opportunity of Second Screening in the year 1954 to the petitioner tantamounts to denial of justice to him. The Law Secretary marked the case to the Deputy Legal Remembrance-cum-Deputy Law Secretary Shri Updesh Narain, Mathur, who after examining the case thoroughly recorded his opinion that denying of the opportunity of second screening in 1951 to the petitioner was a clear discrimination. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioner's case also found support from the Law Department. It has been further averred in para 6 (i) of the writ petition that in the meantime the petitioner sent another representation to the Law Minister on September 23, 1971. The Law Minister marked the petitioner's case to the Law Secretary for his opinion. The Law Secretary gave an opinion favourable to the petitioner. The Finance Minister, after considering the opinion, was of the view that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of denial of an opportunity of second screening in the year 1954 and he showed his concurrence that the petitioner may be given a substantive appointment of Upper Division Clerk in the Rajasthan Secretariat from the year 1954 in the process of integration as recommended by the Appointment Department. It has been further alleged in the same para of the writ petition that the matter was then sent to the Finance Commissioner-cum-Finance Secretary and the Deputy Finance Secretary (Rules), who also concurred with the Finance Minister. It has been further alleged in the same para of the writ petition that the matter was then sent to the Finance Commissioner-cum-Finance Secretary and the Deputy Finance Secretary (Rules), who also concurred with the Finance Minister. It is further alleged in para 6(j) of the writ petition that the matter was again sent to the Registrar Rajasthan Secretariat for issuance of a final order, but the Registrar suggested that the matter should receive the approval of the Chief Secretary & the Chief Minister. The Chief Secretary again called a report from the Deputy Secretary Appointment `B', Department. The- Deputy Secretary; `B' Appointment Department recomeneded that the petitioner should be given a chance of screening as was given in 1964. 6. All these relevant and material facts stated above, have not been' controverted by the State, who was in charge of the record, was supposed to have filed a reply. It is regrettable to note that the State has not, come up; with a reply and, therefore, it will be taken that the above, allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition are correct having not been denied or controverted on behalf of the State. 7. Whether the petitioner's case ever went to the Chief Minister is not clear in absence of any reply from the State, but from the allegations made in para 6(1) of the writ petition it appears that the Registrar, Rajasthan Secretriat by his letter No 7 (15) Apptt/dated-1/69 dated November 25, 1972 (Ex 25) informed the petitioner that-the petitioner representation in the matter of fixing him permanently in, the Secretariat has been rejected after: due consideration. 8. The petitioner after receiving the reply from the Registrar, issued a notice of demand for justice, but the respondents failed to give any reply for considering the notice for demand for justice. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court and inter alia prayed for an appropriate writ order or, direction to consider the petitioner's case for selection, in the terms of the Government order dated, February 1, 1954 and appoint him in the Secretariat in the terms of that order and, give him all benefits. The petitioner further prayed for an appropriate writ order or, direction, that the respondents be directed to fix the lien of the petitioner in the Rajasthan Secretariat and give him all consequential benefits. The petitioner further prayed for an appropriate writ order or, direction, that the respondents be directed to fix the lien of the petitioner in the Rajasthan Secretariat and give him all consequential benefits. In the alternative the petitioner has further prayed that the lien of the petitioner, may be fixed from 1954 in any of the Government Department and benefit, may be given to him in the light of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised pay), Rules 1961, the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Amendment), Rules, 1966 and the Rajasthan Civil Service (New, Pay Scale) Rules, 1969; and fix him in appropriate grade in light of the aforesaid Rules. 9. The State has not chosen to file at any reply, although looking to the allegations made in the writ petition it was necessary for the State to have filed a reply by controverting the allegations in the writ petition, if all the allegation made in the writ petition were incorrect. In the absence of the reply by the State to the very material allegation, made in the writ petition, with reference to various orders of the State Government and officials of the State there is no escape from the conclusion that the allegations made in the writ petition are correct and the matter will have to be therefore, decided in the light of the `allegations made in the writ petition, taking them to be correct. 10. From the allegations made in the writ petition which remained uncontroverted it is evident that at the petitioner was permanently appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chief Minister from April 13, 1958 (vide Ex. 1). After the merger of the former Jaipur State in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was transferred as Personal Assistant to the then Hon'ble Premier and thereafter worked as Office Superintendent from Nov. 3, 1949 to October 27, 1952. The petitioner did not work as Office Superintendent in the permanent capacity but was only on officiating basis. It transpires from the allegations made in the writ petition that the petitioner was never absorbed permanently in any of the departments which fact is clear from the correspondence exchanged between the Registrar, Secretariat and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, the Registrar, Land Records and the Electricity Board. It can not therefore be said that the petitioner acquired lien in any of the departments. It can not therefore be said that the petitioner acquired lien in any of the departments. It is well to remember that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the former State of Jaipur being posted in the Jaipur Secretariat. He was therefrom transferred to the Rajasthan Secretariat after the formation of Rajasthan. His parent department, therefore, could not be any other department except the Rajasthan Secretariat. It cannot be conceived that a permanent employee will have lien nowhere. All the departments have denied that the petitioner had lien in their departments. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, would be that the petitioner continued to have lien as a permanent employee in the Rajasthan Secretariat. It is true that in the year 1952 the petitioner could not be selected on the post office Superintendent in the Rajasthan Secretariat and he was transferred from the Rajasthan Secretariat in the various departments thereafter, but in officiating capacity only. He could not acquire lien in any other department except the Rajasthan Secretariat. The petitioner having lien in the Raj Secretariat, it could not be terminated unilaterally and more so ever when the other Head of the Departments to which the petitioner was transferred from time to time did not permanently absorb the petitioner. The stand taken by the Registrar, Rajasthan Secretariat in these circumstances, to the effect that the petitioner ceased to have his lien in the Rajasthan Secretariat does not it all impress me. Admittedly the petitioner's parent department was the Rajasthan Secretariat and he had a lien in the Rajasthan Secretariat which cannot be terminated unilaterally. In the absence of any evidence that the petitioner was permanently absorbed in any other department the petitioner could have lien in the Secretariat only. 11. The next question which calls up for determination is that in what cadre the petitioner should be fixed in the Rajasthan. Secretariat. It may be recalled that the petitioner was not selected by the first Screening Committee in the year 1952 and so he was shunted off from the Rajasthan Secretariat and was posted in other departments in officiating capacity. By a Government circular dated 1-2-1954 all non-selected persons who were working in the Secretariat were given a chance of screening by a second Screening Committee to a lower post i.e., to post of Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner was then working in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation. By a Government circular dated 1-2-1954 all non-selected persons who were working in the Secretariat were given a chance of screening by a second Screening Committee to a lower post i.e., to post of Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner was then working in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation. The copy of this circular dated February 1, 1954 was not supplied to the petitioner nor was the petitioner informed as is evident from the letter of the Superintending Engineer addressed to the Chief Engineer who had inquired at the instance of the Registrar, Secretariat from the Superintending Engineer as to whether the petitioner was ever informed of the Government circular dated February 1, 1954. The Superintending Engineer categorically said in his letter that no such circular was received in his office and, therefore, there was no question of informing the, petitioner of that circular. The fact, therefore, remains that the petitioner was not informed of the circular and he, therefore, could not take advantage of opportunity of having the benefit of second screening. It may be stated here that one Fatehlal who was junior to the petitioner in the Rajasthan Secretariat and who was also not selected in the first screening having availed of the opportunity of the circular dated February 1, 1954 was permanently appointed as Upper Division Clerk with effect from February 1, 1954. Had the petitioner been given opportunity of second screening then there was every possibility of the petitioner being selected in the process of second screening. It was in this view of the matter that the Deputy Secretary Appointment put a note that the petitioner having been denied opportunity of second screening in all fairness, he should be given been fit of the circular. This note was submitted to the Special Secretary, who was the competent officer in the matter of integration of the services of the subordinate staff. The Special Secretary came to observe upon that note that the petitioner had a claim in the Secretariat. 12. In this view of the matter the case for creation of supernumerary post of Upper Division Clerk in the Raj. Secretariat was sent to the Finance Department which was approved by the Finance Commissioner as well as the Finance Minister. There is thus no justification for not recognising the claim of the petitioner in respect of his lien in the Rajasthan Secretariat. Secretariat was sent to the Finance Department which was approved by the Finance Commissioner as well as the Finance Minister. There is thus no justification for not recognising the claim of the petitioner in respect of his lien in the Rajasthan Secretariat. There has been mistake in not recognising the petitioner's claim in the Rajasthan Secretariat in view of the Government's order No. F.D. No I (IOI) FD Exp Rules)/66 dated July 17, 1967 referred to in para 10(b) of the writ petition by which provision has been made for retrospective promotion by creation of a supernumerary post or upgrading the post in the case of factual error or misapplication or non-compliance of the Rules or Orders and the error in giving the benefit of the grade to the aggrieved person. The petitioner is therefore entitled to be first fixed in the post of Upper Division Clerk by creation of supernumerary post. 13. The petitioner was selected for the post of Office Superintendent Grade III by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on November 6, 1956. Under that order the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in a substantive capacity in the post of Office Superintendent Grade III as the Raj Public Service Commission has selected the petitioner in substantive capacity for the post of office Superintendent Grade III. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to be appointed as Office Superintendent from November 6, 1956 and is entitled to all benefits of that post from the said date. It is really regrettable that the petitioner's lien has not between determined even till his date of retirement as stated at the Bar and not controverted by the Deputy Government Advocates. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Upper Division Clerk in view of the Govt. circular dated February 1, 1954 and further entitled to be substantively appointed as Office Superintendent Grade III as per the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission from November 6, 1956. The grievance of the petitioner can be met by creation of a supernumerary post as per the Government order dated July 17, 1967, referred to above. 15. In the result, the writ petition is accepted. The grievance of the petitioner can be met by creation of a supernumerary post as per the Government order dated July 17, 1967, referred to above. 15. In the result, the writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to fix the petitioner in the Rajasthan Secretariat as Upper Division Clerk from February 1, 1954 and thereafter as Office Superintendent Grade III from November 6, 1956 and treat him as such for all benefits including promotion and the benefits of fixation of any under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1961, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Amendment) Rules, 1966 and the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scale) Rules, 1969. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ petition accepted. *******