JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure P-10) issued/passed by respondent No.2, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it came to be conveyed to the petitioner that his request for permission to join the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services against his lien to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, shall not be accepted till the time he agrees to forego his seniority, petitioner has approached this Court in instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash and set aside the aforesaid communication being contrary to the provisions of law. 2. Precisely, the question which arises for consideration of this Court in the instant proceedings is "Whether on technical resignation seniority in the post held by government servant on substantive basis continues to be protected?" 3. Before exploring answer to aforesaid question certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are as under:- 4. Vide Notification dated 25.11.2014 issued by respondent No.1, petitioner, amongst others, was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to his selection in terms of Notification, as referred to above, petitioner vide Notification dated 16.12.2014, issued by respondent No.2, was detailed to undergo induction training in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy, Shimla. After completion of training period, powers of Judicial Magistrate Second Class came to be conferred upon the petitioner amongst others vide Notification dated 2.6.2015 and he was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate(II), Dehra, District Kangra, as is evident from Annexures R-2/E and R-2/F. 5. Vide letter dated 21.12.2016, District & Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala forwarded the letter dated 17.12.2016 written by the petitioner requesting therein for grant of permission to appear in the interview/test for the post of Assistant District Attorney conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was processed and vide letter dated 30/31.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) respondent No.2 granted the permission to the petitioner to appear in the said screening test for the post of Assistant District Attorney. Vide Notification dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2, service of the petitioner in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (now Civil Judge) was confirmed. Vide Notification dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2, service of the petitioner in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (now Civil Judge) was confirmed. However, petitioner, after being selected as Assistant District Attorney in the State of Haryana tendered his technical resignation from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which was forwarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala vide letter dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure R-2/J). The resignation tendered by the petitioner was processed and considered by respondent No.2 and vide letter dated 19/20.09.2017 (Annexure R-2/K), the same was recommended to respondent No.1 for being accepted unconditionally. Respondent No.1 being appointing Authority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide notification dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure R-2/L) accepted the said resignation and accordingly respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure R-2/M) requested the District & Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala to relieve the petitioner from the present assignment with immediate effect. Petitioner vide his charge relinquishment report dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure R-2/N) relinquished the charge of the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 6. After almost 11/2 years petitioner vide his application dated 23.4.2019 (Annexure P-8) sent through Director Prosecution, Haryana, Panchkula, requested for permission to join Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services against his lien to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate. The aforesaid request of petitioner was processed by respondent No.2 and vide letter dated 12.6.2019 (Annexure R-2/P) petitioner was requested to inform through his Head of Department whether status of the post of Assistant District Attorney being held by him is temporary or he has been absorbed permanently against the said post. In response to the aforesaid communication, Director Prosecution, Haryana vide letter dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure R-2/R) apprised respondent No.2 that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Attorney by the Government of Haryana in the Department of Prosecution vide letter dated 10.08.2017 on purely provisional/temporary basis and he joined as such on 25.09.2017 and as per condition No.6 of his appointment letter issued by the Haryana Government, the petitioner is on probation for a period of two years which will be completed on 25.09.2019 and as such he is on probation period and has not been confirmed in that department on the said date. After receipt of aforesaid communication from the Director Prosecution, Haryana, the matter came to be placed before the Special Committee of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The Special Committee so constituted, having taken note of the fact that the petitioner was confirmed in the cadre of Civil Judges and he is the lien holder, recommended to allow his request to join the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services subject to the condition that he will be junior most in the cadre of Civil Judges and shall neither claim nor get any benefit of his past service including seniority. Relevant portion of recommendation is reproduced as under:- "Sh.Prateek Gupta had tendered technical resignation from the post of Civil Judge on 11.8.2017. He was confirmed in the cadre of Civil Judges and as such he is the lien holder. Keeping in view the lien of Sh.Prateek Gupta in the cadre of Civil Judges and acceptance of his technical resignation, it is recommended to allow his request to join the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services subject to the condition that he will be junior most in the cadre of Civil Judges and shall neither claim nor get any benefit of his past service including seniority." 7. Aforesaid recommendation of Special Committee was placed before the Hon'ble Full Court. The Hon'ble Full Court in its meeting held on 12.07.2019 resolved to send the copy of report of the Special Committee to the petitioner, calling upon him to state in categorical terms, as to whether he is agreeable to forego his seniority and in case he is not prepared to forego his seniority, his request for permission to join the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services will not be accepted. Pursuant to aforesaid resolution made by Hon'ble Full Court, communication dated 22.8.2019 (Annexure P-10) came to be issued to the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 and letter dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure P-9 & P-10 respectively) to the extent of putting the condition of losing seniority and being placed at lower most position in the cadre of Civil Judges and losing his service benefits in case he re-joins the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services in exercise of his lien to the post of Civil Judge, Himachal Pradesh. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. Before ascertaining correctness and genuineness of submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties vis- -vis impugned action of respondents, it is relevant to take note of the fact that neither any specific objection in the reply has been raised nor counsel representing the respondents have advanced arguments, if any, qua the maintainability of the instant petition, wherein specific challenge has been laid to the communication issued in compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble Full Court and as such there is no occasion for this Court to go into that aspect of the matter. 11. Having heard learned Senior Counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record this Court finds that there is no dispute interse parties that the petitioner was confirmed in the cadre of Civil Judge and he had tendered technical resignation from the post of Civil Judge on 11.8.2017 as such he is the lien holder, which fact otherwise stands duly acknowledged in the reply filed by respondent No.2 as well as recommendation of Special Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the request of the petitioner to join back as Civil Judge. Similarly, there appears to be no conflict interse parties that the Judicial Service in the State of Himachal Pradesh is governed by the Act namely; Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (Pay and Conditions of Service) Act, 2003. In exercise of powers conferred by Articles 233, 234 and Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (Pay and Conditions of Service) Act, 2003, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has framed rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of members of different cadres of H.P, Judicial Service (Annexure P-11). 12. Rule-16 of the aforesaid Rules (Residuary Provision) clearly provides that "for the matters not specified in these rules, the rules as are applicable to Class-I Officers of the State Government, shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the members of the service". 13. 12. Rule-16 of the aforesaid Rules (Residuary Provision) clearly provides that "for the matters not specified in these rules, the rules as are applicable to Class-I Officers of the State Government, shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the members of the service". 13. Having carefully perused aforesaid Rules, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Ms.Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that since subject of "Lien" as well as "Technical resignation" has not been specifically dealt with in the parent Act as well as in the rules framed there under, Rule-16 shall be applicable in the case at hand. 14. During proceedings of the case, Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.2, was unable to dispute that there is no specific provision available under main Act as well as Rules framed thereunder dealing with the subject of "Lien" as well as "Technical resignation" :- 15. Rule-16 reads as under:- "Residuary provision:- For the matters not specified in these rules, the rules as are applicable to Class-I Officers of the State Government, shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the members of the service." 16. Close scrutiny of aforesaid residuary provision clearly suggests that Rules as are applicable to Class-I Officers of the State Government would apply to the members of the service qua the matters which are not specified in the Rules. 17. Besides above, it would be also relevant to take note of the fact that vide Notification dated 30.03.1974 (Annexure P-12) Governor of Himachal Pradesh has adopted the specified Central Government Rules with full effect and as such same shall be applicable to the members of the subordinate judiciary, especially qua those matters which are not covered under parent Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. Vide aforesaid Notification (Annexure P-12) Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules alongwith pension Chapter of the Civil Service Regulations have been adopted by the Government and as such they are applicable to the employees of Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as members of judiciary. 18. In terms of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules applicable to all the employees of Central Government, the Central Government has published Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2018, (Annexure P-13), whereby detailed instructions have been issued on the subject of "Technical resignation" as well as "Lien" in Central Services. 18. In terms of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules applicable to all the employees of Central Government, the Central Government has published Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2018, (Annexure P-13), whereby detailed instructions have been issued on the subject of "Technical resignation" as well as "Lien" in Central Services. It would be relevant to take note of certain provisions of Master Circular on Lien/Technical resignation in Central Government services (Annexure P-13):- "Technical Resignation: 1. As per the Ministry of Finance OM No.3379-E-III(B)/65 dated the 17th June 1965, the resignation is treated as a technical formality where a Government servant has applied through proper channel for a post in the same or some other Department, and is on selection, required to resign from the previous post for administrative reasons. The resignation will be treated as technical resignation if these conditions are met, even if the Government servant has not mentioned the word "Technical" while submitting his resignation. The benefit of past service, if otherwise admissible under rules, may be given in such cases. Resignation in other cases including where competent authority has not allowed the Government servant to forward the application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible. Also, no question of benefit of a resignation being treated as a technical resignation arises in case of it being from a post held on ad hoc basis. 2. This benefit is also admissible to Government servants who have applied before joining the Government service and on that account the application was not routed through proper channel. The benefit of past service is allowed in such cases subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:- a. the Government servant should intimate the details of such application immediately on her joining; b. the Government servant at the time of resignation should specifically make a request, indicating that she is resigning to take up another appointment under Government for which she had applied before joining the Government service; c. the authority accepting the resignation should satisfy itself that had the employee been in service on the date of application for the post mentioned by the employee, her application would have been forwarded through proper channel. 3. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. ... ... ... ... ... ... 3. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 8. Seniority:- On technical resignation seniority in the post held by the Government servant on substantive basis continues to be protected. However, in case of a Government servant deciding to rejoin his substantive post, the period spent in the another Department which he had joined after submitting his technical resignation will not count for minimum qualifying service for promotion in the higher post. 9. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 10. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 12. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 13. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 14. Lien: Lien is defined in FR-9(13). It represents the right of a Government employee to hold a regular post, whether permanent or temporary, either immediately or on the termination of the period of absence. The benefit of having a lien in a post/service/cadre is enjoyed by all employees who are confirmed in the post/service/cadre of entry or who have been promoted to a higher post, declared as having completed the probation where it is prescribed. It is also available to those who have been promoted on regular basis to a higher post where no probation is prescribed under the rules, as the case may be. 15. The above right will, however, be subject to the condition that the junior-most person in the cadre will be liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if at any time the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that cadre/service. 16. 15. The above right will, however, be subject to the condition that the junior-most person in the cadre will be liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if at any time the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that cadre/service. 16. Lien on a post:- A Government servant who has acquired a lien on a post retains a lien on that post - (a) while performing the duties of that post; (b) while on foreign service, or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post; (c) during joining time on transfer to another post; unless he is transferred substantively to a post on lower pay, in which case his lien is transferred to the new post from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in the old post; (d) while on leave; and (e) while under suspension. A Government servant on acquiring a lien on a post will cease to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. 17. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18. Termination of Lien: A Government servant's lien on a post may in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent if the result will be to leave him without a lien upon a permanent post. Unless his lien is transferred, a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains lien on that post. It will not be correct to deny a Government servant lien to a post he was holding substantively on the plea that he had not requested for retention of lien while submitting his Technical Resignation, or to relieve such a Government servant with a condition that no lien will be retained. A Government employee's lien on a post shall stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Central Government or a State Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne. No lien shall be retained: (a) where a Government servant has proceeded on immediate absorption basis to a post or service outside his service/cadre/post in the Government from the date of absorption; and (b) on foreign service/deputation beyond the maximum limit admissible under the orders of the Government issued from time to time. 19. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 21. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 21. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 22. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 24. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 26. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." 19. It is quite apparent from the bare reading of aforesaid provisions circulated through Master Circular that the resignation is treated as a technical formality where a Government servant has applied through proper channel for a post in the same or some other Department, and is on selection, required to resign from the previous post for administrative reasons. The resignation will be treated as technical resignation if the conditions as referred above are met, even if the Government servant has not mentioned the word "Technical" while submitting his resignation. The benefit of past service, if otherwise admissible under rules, may be given in such cases. Resignation in other cases including where competent authority has not allowed the Government servant to forward the application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and application through proper channel will not be treated as a technical resignation and benefit of past service will not be admissible. 20. "Lien", as defined under FR 9(13), highlights right of the Government employee to hold a regular post whether permanent or temporary, either immediately or on the termination of the period of absence. The benefit of having a lien in a post/service/cadre is enjoyed by all employees who are confirmed in the post/service/cadre of entry or who have been promoted to a higher post, declared as having completed the probation where it is prescribed. It is also available to those who have been promoted on regular basis to a higher post where no probation is prescribed under the rules. 21. Proviso to aforesaid provision is of great significance as far as case of the petitioner is concerned. Right of lien, as defined in FR-9(13) shall be subject to the condition that the junior-most person in the cadre will be liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if at any time the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that cadre/service. 22. Right of lien, as defined in FR-9(13) shall be subject to the condition that the junior-most person in the cadre will be liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if at any time the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that cadre/service. 22. Condition No.18 of the Circular as taken note hereinabove clarifies that a Government servant's lien on a post may in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent if the result will be to leave him without a lien upon a permanent post. Unless his lien is transferred, a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains lien on that post. It will not be correct to deny a Government servant lien to a post he was holding substantively on the plea that he had not requested for retention of lien while submitting his Technical Resignation, or to relieve such a Government servant with a condition that no lien will be retained. 23. Condition No.8 of aforesaid Master Circular circulated vide Annexure P-13 deals with issue of "Seniority". It stands clarified in the aforesaid clause that on technical resignation, seniority in the post held by the Government servant on substantive basis continues to be protected. However, in case of a Government servant deciding to rejoin his substantive post, the period spent in another Department which he had joined after submitting his technical resignation will not count for minimum qualifying service for promotion in the higher post. 24. FR 13 & 14 also deal with lien as such it would be appropriate to take note of the same:- "(13) Lien means the title of a Government servant to hold on regular basis, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed on regular basis and on which he is not on probation: Provided that the title to hold a regular post shall be subject to the condition that the junior most person in the grade will be liable to be reverted to the lower grade if the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that grade. 14(a) revenue administered by bodies which by law or rule having the force of law come under the control of Government, whether in regard to proceedings generally or to specific matters, such as the sanctioning of their budgets, sanction to the creation or filling up of particular posts, or the enactment of leave, pension or similar rules." 25. "Lien" has also been dealt with in Clause 13.5.2 and 16.10 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, which reads as under: "13.5.2 Seniority of permanent/quasipermanent employees on reversion to the original post. Seniority of permanent and quasipermanent Central Government employees who apply, in response to advertisements or circulation of vacancies for posts in (i) Public Sector Undertakings, whether incorporated or not which are wholly or substantially owned by the Govt. of India or the State Governments or in autonomous Semi-Government organizations and who are appointed to such posts on or after 22.1.1966 or (ii) other Government Departments/Offices and who are appointed to such posts on or after 14.7.1967, are entitled in the event of reversion to the parent Department, within the specified period of two/three years, to the original seniority in the grade/post, from which they proceeded on foreign service to the Public Sector Undertakings and autonomous bodies/deputation to other posts under Government. (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/6/67-Estt (ii), dated 4.9.1967)" 16.10 Claims of officers who are away on deputation, foreign service and study leave (i) The claims of the officers who are on deputation, foreign service etc. should also be taken into consideration in drawing up the select lists and a decision taken at the appropriate time whether such an officer would, on the basis of the record, have been promoted or confirmed had he been available. If the question is decided in the absentee's favour provision should be made for his regaining his temporarily lost seniority on his return to his cadre and if the vacancy is a substantive one he should be confirmed therein, officiating or provisionally substantive arrangements in his place being made during his absence. Where such a decision cannot be taken on the basis of his record and an assessment of his performance after his reversion to the parent Department or office is considered necessary for the purpose, the officer concerned should be warned of this position and steps taken to give him an opportunity to return to the Department or office within a reasonable time. Where on grounds of public interest it is not possible to give such opportunity, the question of safe-guarding his interest should be considered on merits. (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/1/55-RPS, dated 17.2.1955) (ii) The above provision will also apply to officers who are on deputation to or on foreign service in Projects in the Public Sector. In other words, the period of service rendered by such an officer in a Project should be treated as comparable service in his own parent department. This is subject to the condition that the deputation etc. is with the approval of the competent authority and it is certified that but for deputation etc. the officer would have continued to hold an appointment in the relevant grade in his parent department. (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/8/62-Estt.(D), dated 25.6.1962) (iii) An officer proceeding on study leave should be treated on the same basis as an officer proceeding on deputation or on foreign service for purpose of sub-para (i) above and he should be allowed to: (a) count the period of study leave as service in the substantive and/or officiating appointment held by him and thereby qualifying in relation to any rule in the Department laying down a minimum period of service for promotion for such promotion as he be eligible for; and (b) count the period of study leave towards seniority in (i) Substantive appointment held by him; (ii) officiating appointment held by him at the time of proceeding on leave, provided the competent authority certifies that he would have continued to officiate in such appointment but for his proceeding on study leave; and (iii) appointment to which he would have been promoted but for his absence on study leave as certified by the competent authority in terms of para 1(iv) of the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 1/1/55- RPS, dated the 17th February, 1955, reproduced as in sub para (i), above. Accordingly, when an opportunity arises for promotion of an officer during his period of study leave, he should be promoted to the higher post straightway on return from the study leave. (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/1/57-RDS, dated 12.4.1958) (iv) The above instructions apply also in case of Government servants who are granted special leave for training abroad, under the various training schemes (vide Min.of Finance O.M No.F(30)E-II/53, dated 3.11.1953). (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/12/57-RPS, dated 20.10.1958)" 26. (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/1/57-RDS, dated 12.4.1958) (iv) The above instructions apply also in case of Government servants who are granted special leave for training abroad, under the various training schemes (vide Min.of Finance O.M No.F(30)E-II/53, dated 3.11.1953). (M.H.A. O.M. No.1/12/57-RPS, dated 20.10.1958)" 26. Ms.Ranjana Parma, learned Senior counsel, has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan and Another vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "17. It is very well settled that when a person with a lien against the post is appointed substantively to another post, only then he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then and then alone the lien against the previous post disappears. Lien connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed. The lien of a government employee over the previous post ends if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis. In such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It may not require a formal termination of lien over the previous permanent post. 18. This Court in Ram Lal Khurana Vs. State of Punjab, (1989) 4 SCC 99 observed that: (SCC p.102, para 8) "8. ... ...Lien is not a word of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed." 19. The term "lien" comes from the Latin term "ligament" meaning "binding". The meaning of lien in Service Law is different from other meanings in the context of contract, common law, equity, etc. The lien of a government employee in Service Law is the right of the government employee to hold a permanent post substantively to which he has been permanently appointed. [See Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P., (1992) Supp1 SCC 524 ]. 20. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 21. Be it noted that no objections were raised when the respondent employee gave his option on 8.4.1991 duly informing all the concerned that his lien in the Subordinate Statistical Service, had to be maintained for the purposes of promotions to higher posts/protection of financial interests etc. In such view of the matter the respondent employee always had his lien in his parent department. In such view of the matter the respondent employee always had his lien in his parent department. The State at this stage cannot be allowed to turn round and say that the respondent employee did not retain lien against his post in the parent department." 27. Reliance is also placed upon T.R. Sharma vs. Prithvi Singh and another, (1976) AIR SC 367 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "6. The learned Judges constituting the majority of the Full Bench in holding that the appellant's lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector had stood terminated relied upon rule 3.12. Perusal of the above rule shows that normally a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post. The opening words of the above rule, however, show that it would apply unless it be otherwise provided in the rules. Rule 3.14(a)(2) carves out an exception to the general rule contained in rule 3.12. According to rule 3.14(a)(2), a competent authority shall suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. When the appellant was appointed was Block Development and Panchayat officer in a substantive permanent capacity, his case squarely fell within the ambit of rule 3.14(a)(2) as the post of Block Development and Panchayat officer was outside the cadre of Agricultural Inspectors to which the appellant belonged: In the circumstances, it was imperative for the competent authority to suspend the lien of the appellant on the permanent post of Agricultural Inspector which he had held substantively. The competent authority, however, failed to suspend the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector. The appellant plainly cannot suffer because of such inaction or omission on the part of the competent authority. A reading of the rule leaves no doubt that a duty is cast upon the competent authority to suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. A reading of the rule leaves no doubt that a duty is cast upon the competent authority to suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity to a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. The imperative nature of the rule is also clear from the use of the word "shall" in clause (a) as against the use of the word "may" in clause (b) of that rule. The appellant, in our opinion, cannot be penalised because of the omission of the competent authority to act in accordance with the mandatory provisions of rule 3.14 (a)(2). Clause (b) of rule 3.15 also makes it clear that in a case covered by sub-clause (2) of clause (a) of rule 3.14, the suspended lien of the Government servant concerned may not, except on the written request of that Government servant, be terminated while he remains in Government service. The note to rule 3.15 shows a way out in case any difficulty is experienced on account of the operation of rule 3.14(a) (2). It is nobody's case that any written request was made by the appellant for terminating his suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector. As such, we find it difficult to uphold the finding of the majority of the learned Judges that the lien of the appellant on the post of Agricultural Inspector had stood terminated. In our opinion, the third Judge who was in the minority took a correct view of the matter when he observed that the Government servant is not to be penalised and cannot be deprived of the safeguards provided by rule 3.14 because of the fact that the competent authority had not taken the necessary steps." 28. Rule 26(2) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 provides that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. The rule reads as under:- "26(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." 29. The rule reads as under:- "26(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies." 29. As has been noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, there is no dispute interse parties that subject of "Lien" as well as "Technical resignation", which has otherwise been not covered under Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (Pay and Conditions of Service) Act, 2003 and the rules framed thereunder, shall be governed by the rules, as are applicable to Class-I Officers of the State Government in terms of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules applicable to all employees of Central Government. Similarly it is not in dispute that Himachal Pradesh Government has adopted the specific Central Government Rules and as such Memorandum dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) containing detailed instructions with regard to subject of "Lien/Technical resignation" is applicable to the members of subordinate judiciary. 30. Having taken note of aforesaid Memorandum dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) read with FR 13, 14 and 15 and provisions contained in Handbook on Personnel Matters, this Court finds substantial force in the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.2, while considering his request for joining back Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service against his lien to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, could not have stipulated or put condition that the petitioner will be junior most in the cadre of Civil Judges and shall not claim any past service benefits including seniority. 31. By now it is well settled that on submission of technical resignation a person holds a lien on the post against which he was appointed substantively, meaning thereby that the petitioner continues to have lien over the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) till the time he gets a lien or otherwise he is appointed on substantive basis on another post. If the claim of the petitioner is examined in light of clause-8 of Master Circular circulated vide Memo dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13), he is right in contending that entire service rendered in any other Department while occupying/retaining substantive lien in the post is to be counted for all purposes. 32. If the claim of the petitioner is examined in light of clause-8 of Master Circular circulated vide Memo dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13), he is right in contending that entire service rendered in any other Department while occupying/retaining substantive lien in the post is to be counted for all purposes. 32. Clause 14 and 15 of the Master Circular (Annexure P-13) as has been taken note of hereinabove, if read in conjunction juxtaposing proviso to FR 9(13), it clearly emerge that junior most person in the cadre shall be liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if at any time the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that cadre/service, meaning thereby that if request of the petitioner to join Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service against his lien to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is accepted, junior most person in the cadre shall be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre to make place for the petitioner and such decision of Special Committee to accept the prayer of the petitioner to join Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services subject to the condition that he will be junior most in the cadre of Civil Judges and shall neither claim nor get any benefit of his past service including seniority is not sustainable being contrary to the Rules governing the field. 33. Though respondent No.2 has made an attempt to justify aforesaid condition by stating in its reply that since the petitioner has not performed duties on the same post, he is not entitled for counting his previous service rendered as a Civil Judge before joining as Assistant District Attorney in Haryana, but definitely, reason as assigned above cannot be a ground/basis to deny seniority to the petitioner qua the post held by him on substantive basis during his lien because on technical resignation seniority in the post held by the Government servant on substantive basis continues to be protected as has been envisaged/clarified in clause-8 of Master Circular on Technical resignation and Lien in Central Services as has been taken note hereinabove. 34. 34. Another contention raised by Mr.Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.2 that since the petitioner remained outside the cadre post on which he was taken in the parent department and had joined at his own choice to the post of Assistant District Attorney, he is not entitled to seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services is also without any merit when examined/tested in the teeth of Rules, as have been taken note hereinabove. Applicability of instructions dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13) has not been denied specifically in the reply filed by respondent No.2, rather in reply it has been stated that applicability of instructions dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13) is to be seen keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Besides above, respondent No.2 has made an attempt to justify its action by stating in its reply that after having resigned from the post of Civil Judge, petitioner chose to join another post of Assistant District Attorney, having different duties and responsibilities, hence he is not entitled to seniority in the cadre of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services, but such plea is wholly misconceived and untenable being totally contrary to the true import of the provisions contained in Annexure P-13. 35. Instructions do not, at all, differentiate higher or lower post to which the Government employee, having lien, is appointed and as such it cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, concluded that the instructions dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13) would apply if the Government employee is appointed to a post higher than his cadre post and would not apply if the Government employee is appointed to a post lower than his cadre pose. 36. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that at no point of time no such condition ever came to be imposed on the petitioner when he was permitted to join as ADA in Haryana thereby cautioning him that he shall not be given seniority in his cadre if he intends to rejoin in his parent cadre at a later stage. Rather record clearly reveals that the petitioner had sought permission to appear in the written examination and interview for the post of Assistant District Attorney in Haryana. He appeared in the selection process and thereafter joined service in the State of Haryana after submitting his technical resignation to respondent No.2, which was duly accepted. Rather record clearly reveals that the petitioner had sought permission to appear in the written examination and interview for the post of Assistant District Attorney in Haryana. He appeared in the selection process and thereafter joined service in the State of Haryana after submitting his technical resignation to respondent No.2, which was duly accepted. If the provisions contained in clause-8 are read in conjunction with clause 14 & 15 of the instructions dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13), it clearly reveals that the right of a Government employee holding lien in his cadre shall be protected even if the junior most person in that cadre has to be reverted to the lower post/ service/cadre. Very import and mandate of the instructions dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13) is that the Government Employee on substantive basis shall retain his seniority position in his cadre if he opts to rejoin in that cadre after technical resignation within the prescribed time. In the case at hand, the petitioner well within time i.e. prior to expiry of two years has sought permission to rejoin his parent cadre against the post he was having lien. Even otherwise retaining lien would mean occupying a post for all intents and purposes and once a lien stands granted to the petitioner it is incumbent upon the respondents to permit him to join back on the said post without putting any condition in terms of the Rules and Instructions occupying the field. Minutes of meeting of Special Committee held on 13.6.2019 nowhere disclose reasons as to why petitioner can be asked to forego his seniority and past benefits while permitting him to join back to the post of Civil Judge against which he holds lien. 37. It appears that Instructions/Master Circular dated 27.8.2018 (Annexure P-13) was not brought to the notice of Special Committee constituted for considering the request of petitioner. In the impugned decision of Special Committee, order dated 13.6.2019 as well as letter dated 22.8.2019 no rule or instruction has been quoted so as to justify the decision of putting an onerous condition upon the petitioner. 38. In the impugned decision of Special Committee, order dated 13.6.2019 as well as letter dated 22.8.2019 no rule or instruction has been quoted so as to justify the decision of putting an onerous condition upon the petitioner. 38. Though plain reading of clause-8 of Master Circular suggests that period spent in another Department after submission of his technical resignation will not count for minimum qualifying service for promotion in the higher post, but, if aforesaid provision is read in conjunction with clause 16.10 of Hand Book of Personnel Matters, it is abundantly clear that claims of officers, who are on deputation or in foreign service is also to be taken into consideration for promotion during his absence from the Department on account of his joining in another department. 39. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure P-9) as well as letter dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure P-10) are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner afresh in terms of provisions contained in Master Circular (Annexure P-13) as well as observations made hereinabove. 40. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.