Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1623 (GUJ)

C. G. Govindan v. Registrar

2024-07-25

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) : Heard Mr. C.G Govindan, learned party-in-person and Mr.D.M Devnani, learned advocate appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP for respondent no.4. 2. The petitioner herein, was serving as Private Secretary in the establishment of the High Court and had retired upon reaching the age of superannuation upon completing 38 years of service on 30.04.2004. Before filing the present writ petition the petitioner had filed departmental appeal being SCA No.10345 of 2001, SCA No. 4461 of 2003 and MCA No. 2189 of 2004 in SCA No. 4461 of 2003 with CA No. 7755 of 2005. While disposing of MCA No.2189 of 2004 with CA No. 7755 of 2005 in SCA No.4461 of 2003 vide order dated 13.09.2005, it was observed that if the applicant was not satisfied with the decision, then the petitioner had the remedy to challenge the decision by filing a substantive petition. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-A. In view thereof, the present petition is filed by the petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the order no. B.1304 of 2000 dated 27.06.2000 passed by the respondent no.2, the then Registrar of High Court of Gujarat, confirming the petitioner retrospectively, without following the provisions of BCSR with a malafide intention to deny the pay-scale of Rs.10,000 -15,200 to the petitioner. 3. The order no. 359 of 2002 dated 16.12.2002 passed by the respondent no.4 the Principal Judge, terminating the lien of the petitioner on the post of Private Secretary in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad with retrospective effect and the letter dated 29.03.2004 of the respondent no.2, as the same does not convey that the representations of the petitioner have been decided afresh as per the order passed in SCA No. 4461 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003. But it states that the representations have been decided as per the letter dated 23.01.2002 which was under challenge in SCA No. 4461 of 2003. But it states that the representations have been decided as per the letter dated 23.01.2002 which was under challenge in SCA No. 4461 of 2003. The petitioner also challenges the decisionletters of respondent no.1 dated 10.12.2004 and 31.03.2005 conveyed to respondent no.2, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the pay-scale of Rs.10,000-15,200 and designating the petitioner as Principal Private Secretary (hereinafter be read as ‘PPS’) without deciding the representations of the petitioner dated 04.12.2000 and 04.01.2001 afresh as per the order dated 10.07.2003 passed in SCA No.4461 of 2003 on the ground that the same were without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of BCSR and are contrary to law, misdirecting the facts based on irrelevant considerations and had disregarded the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts. 4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows. 4.1 The petitioner joined the Government service as Stenographer Grade-II, in the office of Labour Commissioner Ahmedabad in the year 1966. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-II and transferred to the Office of Government Pleader High Court of Gujarat, in the year 1970. The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-I as Private Secretary and his services were transferred to City Civil Court, Ahmedabad from 02.12.1974 and thereafter he was confirmed on the said post. The petitioner joined High Court of Gujarat as Stenographer Grade-I Private Secretary (herinafter be read as ‘PS’) on the basis of transfer order from 01.09.1990 by appointment order issued by the High Court dated 20.06.1990 and the petitioner was relieved from City Civil Court, by order dated 29.08.1990, to enable the petitioner to join the duties as Private Secretary in the High Court. The office orders are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- B Colly. 4.2 On 25.05.1999, the General Administrative Department of State of Gujarat, issued the GR NO.S-CH-M- 1991-1876 KH-4, which is duly produced at Annexure- C. It indicates upgradation of 20% of the sanctioned posts of Private Secretary Class-II in Sachivalaya and other heads of the department, where recruitment of Stenographers is within the purview of GPSC and wherein they are designated as Principal Private Secretary (Class-I) in pay scale of 10,000 -15,200, on a condition that Private Secretary should complete 15 years of service and should fall within the 20% sanctioned post of Private Secretaries. 4.3 Upon issuance of said GR, the petitioner preferred two representations on 05.07.1999 and 18.08.1999 to the respondent no.3 – The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad requesting to grant the petitioner the post of PPS as the petitioner had completed 15 years of service in City Civil Court and fall within the 20% of the sanctioned post of Private Secretary, in accordance with the said GR dated 25.05.1999, as referred above. Pending the said representations, the respondent no.3 passed two orders on 10.09.1999 and on 22.11.2000 granting posts of PPS Class- I to some of the juniors to the petitioner like, Sarvashri P.N Ramanaryanan, B.M Patel, J.A Bhavsar and S.K Painter, without making the GR applicable to the City Civil Court. The office order is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure- E Colly. 4.4 The respondent no.3 was not deciding the representations preferred by the petitioner and in view thereof, the petitioner filed departmental appeal in the High Court on 07.04.2000, but the said departmental appeal was directed to be treated as a representation and the same was forwarded to respondent no.3 on 07.05.2000. The respondent no.3 did not grant the post of PPS to the petitioner though the petitioner was a confirmed PS in City Civil Court and were fulfilling all the conditions laid down in the said GR. The respondent no.3 thereafter, asked for some clarification from the State in the case of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 granted the post of PPS to the juniors of the petitioner as per Annexure- E-Colly. 4.5 In response to the clarification, the Government in legal department directed the Principal Judge to request the petitioner to make representation to the High Court. As the petitioner was serving in the High Court by Government letter dated 30.08.2000. The petitioner has preferred two representations in the High Court i.e. on 04.12.2000 and 04.01.2001. The Registrar High Court supplied copy of the second order dated 02.11.2000 granting the post of PPS to one Mr. S.K Painter. Thereafter, the High Court supplied copy of the first order dated 10.09.1999, granting upgraded post designated as PPS to one Mr. P.M Ramnarayan and other two who were juniors to the petitioner in the City Civil Court, without according sanction to fill up those posts by the Government. 4.6 As the High Court was not deciding the representations preferred by the petitioner. P.M Ramnarayan and other two who were juniors to the petitioner in the City Civil Court, without according sanction to fill up those posts by the Government. 4.6 As the High Court was not deciding the representations preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application being SCA 10345 of 2001, in which, by order dated 22.01.2002, the respondent no.1 was directed to decide the representations of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 23.01.2002, the respondent no.1-Registrar informed the petitioner that the representations are filed. The petitioner again preferred SCA No. 4461 of 2003 challenging the said communication. In SCA No. 4461 of 2003 by order dated 10.07.2003, this Court has directed to decide the claim of the petitioner as per rules of the GR dated 25.05.1999, and to pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. 4.7 In response to the aforesaid, the respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s representations are duly decided in accordance with the order passed in SCA No. 10345 of 2001. As the respondents were not deciding the representation, the petitioner as per the order dated 10.07.2003, addressed the letter dated 15.12.2003 to the respondents to decide the representation as per the order dated 10.07.2003 in SCA No. 4461 of 2003. In response to the said letter the respondent no.1 addressed a letter on 29.03.2004 along with the copies of correspondent of Principal Judge and City Civil Court and Government in the legal Department addressed to the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner. The respondent no.3 stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the post of PPS from City Civil Court as the lien of the petitioner is terminated by the City Civil Court. The petitioner thereafter preferred MCA No. 2189 of 2004 by initiating the proceedings, the Division Bench decided the said MCA, directing the petitioner to file a substantive petition. On 30.04.2004, the petitioner retired upon reaching the age of superannuation and started practicing in the High Court. 5. In view thereof, the present petition is filed and has prayed for the following reliefs. “(a) Directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 with effect from from 25.05.1999 and designating the petitioner as Principal Private Secretary and further directing the respondents to grant revised pension and pensionary benefits in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 forthwith. “(a) Directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 with effect from from 25.05.1999 and designating the petitioner as Principal Private Secretary and further directing the respondents to grant revised pension and pensionary benefits in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 forthwith. (b) Any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper may be granted and for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall for ever pray.” Submissions by the petitioner – party in person. 6. Mr. Govindan the learned party-in-person, has placed reliance upon the facts as referred above facts and submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner in City Civil Court be considered for the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit that accrue out pursuant to the GR dated 25.05.1999, upgrading 20% post of Sachiwalaya and other heads of departments, where the recruitment of the Stenographers is within the purview of GPSC and had designated them as Principal Private Secretaries in the pay scale of 10000-15000, on the condition that the Private Secretary should complete 15 years of service and should fall within 20% sanction posts of Private Secretaries. It is submitted that upon counting the service rendered by the petitioner, in the establishment of City Civil Court since 02.12.1974, it makes the petitioner eligible for benefit accrued from aforesaid GR. 6.1 In view thereof, the petitioner had completed 15 years of service and would fall within the 20% posts of Private Secretaries. It is submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner herein be designated as Principal Private Secretary in the establishment of High Court as on 01.09.1990, in view order dated 16.08.1990 which is a transfer order, and the same has to be considered as a continuous service. 6.2 It is submitted that the respondent no.3 has committed an error in terminating the lien of the petitioner from the City Civil Court by order dated 16.12.2002 with retrospective effect. i.e. from 16.04.1998. It is submitted that the aforesaid action undertaken by the respondent no.3 is in violation of the relevant provisions of BCSR i.e. Rule 20(a) sub-rule(b)(ii). It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner, be granted. 7. To substantiate the aforesaid submission the learned Party-in-person Mr. Govindan has relied upon certain judgments which are as follows. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner, be granted. 7. To substantiate the aforesaid submission the learned Party-in-person Mr. Govindan has relied upon certain judgments which are as follows. (a) The following judgments are cited that reasons must be given for deciding representation. 1. 2013(4) SLR 665 (SC) in the case of Rakesh Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2. (2010) (13) SCC 427 Oryx Fisheries Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors. 3. (2012) (4) SCC 407 Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector & Ors. (b) lien cannot be suspended without consent of a Govt. employee. 1. (1976) (2) SCC 844 State of Haryana Vs. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Anr. 2. (1976) (4) SCC 339 State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Labhu Ram and Ors. 3. (1999) (2) SLR 722 Beant Ram Kanda Vs. State of Punjab and ors. (C) When an employee is transferred to other department at his own request, he may not get seniority there but he is entitled to get promotion and higher pay scale. 1. (2006)(7) SCC 521 State of UP and Ors. Vs. Maqbool Ahmad 2. (2003) (8) SCC 714 Union of India and Anr Vs. V.N Bhat 3. (2008) (2) SCC 646 State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs.Uttam Vishnu Pawar. (d) Payment of interest on arrears of higher pay scale, the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.06.2015 in SCA No. 8251 of 2015. Submissions by the respondent’s advocate. 8. Heard Mr. D.M Devnani, learned advocate appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Devnani, learned advocate relied upon the affidavit-in-reply, which is duly filed by the respondent herein is annexed at page. 158. It is submitted that before 1974, the petitioner was working in the Office of Government pleader of High Court of Gujarat vide Office Order No. 126 of 1974. The petitioner being a candidate on the select list was serving as a Stenographer in the Office of Government Pleader, was appointed by transfer, on purely temporary basis on probation and on trial basis for a period of 3 months in the City Civil & Session Court, Ahmedabad. 8.1 The petitioner, thereafter, took charge of as Private Secretary in the City Civil Court on 02.12.1974 and worked upto 31.08.1990. 8.1 The petitioner, thereafter, took charge of as Private Secretary in the City Civil Court on 02.12.1974 and worked upto 31.08.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary in the establishment of High Court by way of direct selection and the petitioner, was thus, revealed from the City Civil Court on 31.08.1990 by office order dated 16.08.1990. The petitioner and the then Personal Assistants and English Stenographers namely V.C Darji, Shri Fernades Stanley and Shri M.V. Mohandas were relived from the establishment of City Civil Court on 31.08.1990 to enable them to join their services as Private Secretaries from 01.09.1990. 8.2 The right of lien as is known is vesting a right in the petitioner to return to the City Civil Court establishment. Since the petitioner was appointed in the establishment of High Court, he had right of lien with City Civil Court, however, the petitioner had never exercised his right to return back to City Civil Court, therefore, the lien stood terminated by the respondent no.3 by order dated 16.04.1998. It is submitted that the petitioner was not on the establishment of City Civil Court and therefore, there was no occasion to decide the merits and efficiency of the petitioner and therefore, the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 25.05.1999, cannot be extended to the petitioner. 8.3 It is submitted that the petitioner kept on making representation for his claim for up-gradation of his pay scale to Rs.10000-15200 and to re-designate him as Principal Private Secretary. The petitioner also made representation to the State Government on 01.06.2000, however petitioner was relegated to prefer a representation to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by communication from the legal department dated 30.08.2000. It is also submitted that petitioner was requested to seek clarification from the General Administrative Department if required. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also moved the representations to the Chief Justice of High Court of Gujarat which depicts that the petitioner has accepted that the authority before which grant or rejection of claim by the petitioner is the High Court of Gujarat. 8.4 It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been confirmed on the establishment of High Court as on 27.06.2000, with retrospective effect from 16.04.1998. The petitioner in view thereof, was not on the establishment of the City Civil Court. 8.4 It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been confirmed on the establishment of High Court as on 27.06.2000, with retrospective effect from 16.04.1998. The petitioner in view thereof, was not on the establishment of the City Civil Court. On 16.12.2002, the lien of the petitioner was terminated by the Principal District Judge of City Civil Court since the petitioner came to be confirmed as an employee of High Court of Gujarat with effect from 16.04.1998. The petitioner was in the establishment of High Court of Gujarat with effect from 01.09.1990 and had left the establishment of City Civil Court since then, the petitioner’s right of lien has no relevance with the pay scale. It is a right to only when the employee return back to the City Civil Court. 8.5 It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefits flowing from GR dated 25.05.1999. It is submitted that other Private Secretaries appointed in the establishment of High Court along with the petitioner by direct selection, who were working on the establishment of High Court before 1990, have been given the benefits as claimed by the petitioner. Those, who were similarly situated have neither been given any such benefits nor are they entitled to. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to have such benefits. 8.6 It is submitted that if the claim of the petitioner is accepted then, large number of Private Secretaries who were working on the establishment of City Civil Court and who were fulfilling the criteria of GR dated 25.05.1999 would be deprived of the benefit to which they are entitled to receive. Hence, the interpretation of the GR as has been contended by the petitioner cannot be accepted. By placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the petitioner herein is a direct recruitee in the establishment of High Court of Gujarat and hence, no interference is called for and therefore, this Court may not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the present petition may be dismissed. ANALYSIS 9. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Undisputed facts that emerge for deciding the dispute in question are that, prior to 1974, the petitioner was working in the Office of Government Pleader of the High Court of Gujarat by office order No. 1261974. ANALYSIS 9. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Undisputed facts that emerge for deciding the dispute in question are that, prior to 1974, the petitioner was working in the Office of Government Pleader of the High Court of Gujarat by office order No. 1261974. The petitioner being a candidate on select list, was transferred purely on temporary basis on probation for a period of three months to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that petitioner came to be appointed as Private Secretary on the establishment of High Court vide office order dated 20.06.1990 and the petitioner was thus relieved from the City Civil Court w.e.f 31.08.1990, by office order dated 29.08.1990. The petitioner and other similarly situated Stenographers were relieved from the establishment of City Civil Court so as to enable them to join their service from 01.09.1990. 10. In light of the aforesaid facts, the length of service of the petitioner for the purpose of extending the benefits of GR dated 25.05.1999, would be considered from the date of appointment of the petitioner in the High Court as Private Secretary w.e.f 31.08.1990. Some of the Stenographers who were transferred to join the services from the City Civil Court to the High Court were entitled to the benefits of GR dated 25.05.1999, had completed their service of 15 years more particularly, the petitioner took charge of as Private Secretary in the City Civil Court as on 02.12.1974 and worked upto 31.08.1990. 11. Reliance is placed by the petitioner claiming that the lien cannot be suspended without the consent of Government employee. This Court deems it fit to deal with the position of law relied upon by the petitioner (a) In the case of State Of Haryana vs Des Raj Sangar & Anr reported in (1976) 2 SCC 844 . In the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide and in the absence of the written request by the employee concerned, the lien on the post permanently held by him cannot be terminated. Once the post held by the respondent was abolished his lien to his earlier post is revived. Once the post held by the respondent was abolished his lien to his earlier post is revived. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the lien on the post permanently held by the aforesaid respondent could not be terminated, and in view thereof, the lien has been revived; however in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has been permanently appointed on the post of Private Secretary in the High Court of Gujarat as on 16.04.1998. [b] The judgment in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Labhu Ram & Ors reported in (1976) (4) SCC 339. In the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that employees in the said case were merely officiating in the senior vernacular cadre but their right places were in the junior vernacular cadre. The mere fact that they worked in the senior cadre for longer periods than probationers would could not give them the status of either more probationers or persons confirmed in the senior vernacular cadre. They could not, for that reason alone, be deprived of the benefits of their substantive appointments in the junior vernacular cadre. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the present petitioner was directly appointed in the High Court and in view thereof, the persons who were transferred to the High Court were granted benefits of GR dated 25.05.1999. The petitioner has not completed 15 years of service in the establishment of High Court and therefore was not eligible to the benefits of the aforesaid GR. The petitioner have been appointed on permanent post on the establishment of High Court of Gujarat and lost his lien on the establishment of City Civil Court. [c] The judgment in the case of Beant Ram Kanda Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1999(2) SLR 722. In the said case, it was considered that the employee would be considered for promotion to the post of Principal on the basis that he belongs to the cadre of Lecturer position in the seniority list figures at Serial No. 603-A. The aforesaid consideration would relate back to the date when the person junior to the petitioner were promoted from the cadre of Lecturers to the post of Principal. If the petitioner is promoted as Principal as a consequence of the aforesaid consideration, she would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the dispute is not with regard to promotion. 12. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been permanently appointed as Private Secretary in the establishment of High Court as on 27.06.2000 with retrospective effect from 16.04.1998. The aforesaid was dealt with extensively and the contention of the petitioner was not considered. It is apposite to refer to the communication issued by the City Civil Court dated 31.03.2005, which is duly produced at Annexure-P, in the said communication, the then Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat has explained in detail that why the petitioner is not eligible for the benefits of GR dated 25.05.1999. It is apposite to refer to para.1 to 3 of the said communication which is reads thus. “(1) It is an undisputed fact that you were working as English Stenographer Grade-1 (now the said post is re-designated as Private Secretary) on the establishment of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad from 2.12.1974 and on your appointment by way of direct selection as Private Secretary on the establishment of High court on probation for a period of one year, you were relieved by the office of the City Civil Court on 31.8.1990 ?.?.?. vide office order No.11090 dated 29.6.1990 in view of High Court's order No. B.130490 dated 16.8.1990 and accordingly you joined your new assignment as private Secretary on the establishment of high court w.e.f. 1.9.1990 B.0.H. and worked on the establishment of the High court till the time you retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. You were also confirmed on the post of the Private Secretary (English Stenographer Grade Class- II) on the establishment of High court from 16.4.1998 which is very clear from the letter No.B 13042002 dated 15.11.2002 of High Court which was addressed to the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. ceipt of the said letter from the High Court, vide office order No.359 of 2002 dated 16.12.2002 issued by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad your lien came to be terminated w.e.f. 16.4.1998 i.e. the date of your confirmation on the establishment of High Court. ceipt of the said letter from the High Court, vide office order No.359 of 2002 dated 16.12.2002 issued by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad your lien came to be terminated w.e.f. 16.4.1998 i.e. the date of your confirmation on the establishment of High Court. (2) Now so far as the question of lien is concerned it would be important to refer to Rule 20-A(a) of Bombay Civil Services Rules. Rule 20-A(a) of Bombay Civil Services Rules provides as under ‘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 or a suspended lien upon a permanent post’ It is very clear that a Government servant's lien post will stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on permanent post outside the cadre on which it is borne. You were a confirmed employee of the High Court since 16.4.1998. From 16.4.1998 your lien with the City Civil Court, Ahmedabd stood terminated and therefore, you are not entitled to get the benefit of upgraded pay scale and new designation of Principal Private Secretary from 25.5.1999 as you had lost your lien on the establishment of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. At the relevant point of time the existing sanctioned strength of Private Secretary of the establishment of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad was 34 and had you continued on the establishment of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 25.5.1999 you would have been included in the bracket of 20% as per your seniority and would have become entitled to get the benefit arising out of the Government Resolution dated 25.5.1999. But for the reasons assigned above, you were not considered for the benefit of upgraded pay scale and the next incuments in seniority falling within the brackets of 20% were granted such benefits as and when it became due to each of them. It is also important to note that you were appointed as Private Secretary Class-II on the establishment of High Court of Gujarat from 1.9.1990 but you were not appointed as such on transfer basis. You were selected and appointed as Private Secretary purely temporary basis and on probation for a period one year. It is also important to note that you were appointed as Private Secretary Class-II on the establishment of High Court of Gujarat from 1.9.1990 but you were not appointed as such on transfer basis. You were selected and appointed as Private Secretary purely temporary basis and on probation for a period one year. (3) of High Court has also examined the relevant aspect lien which has been very much highlighted by you keeping in mind the provision of Rule 20-A(b) of Bombay Civil Service Rules. Analogous to Rule 20 is Rule 14-A (a) which also provides servant's lien on a post may, in that no a fundamental Government circumstances be terminated, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave him without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permanent post. Under fundamental Rule 14-A (d) a Government servant'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. A conjoint reading, thus would establish that a Government servant shall always have a lien on the post and simultaneously, he shall not have right to hold any lien on more than one post. In other words, their articulated major premise is that an employee cannot simultaneously be a member of two posts/service/grade/cadre nor is he eligible to hold lien on two posts. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Lal & ors. vs. State of Hariyana and ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2366 (para 10). Considering your matter from all aspects His Lordship the Honourable the Chief Justice has been pleased to inform you that your claim for lien in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and for the pay scale of Rs. vs. State of Hariyana and ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2366 (para 10). Considering your matter from all aspects His Lordship the Honourable the Chief Justice has been pleased to inform you that your claim for lien in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and for the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 and for the designation of the Principal Private Secretary has been considered and examined afresh on the basis of Government Resolution dated 25th May 1999 and it is concluded that as your lien on the establish- of City Civil Court at Ahmedabad stood terminated from 16.4.1998, you are not entitled to get the benefit of upgraded pay scale and new designation of Principal Private Secretary from 25.5.1999 1.e. from the date of Government Resolution, increasing 10% posts of private Secretary to 20% because much prior to 25.5.1999, you had lost your lien from the establishment of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.” 13. In light of the aforesaid discussion and position of law as relied upon by the petitioner, it is apposite to refer to Rule 14(A)(d) which provides that “a Government servant'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.” a government servants post shall be terminated upon acquiring on a permanent post whether at Central Government or State Government outside the cadre on which he is borne. Thus, it would establish that the petitioner could have lien only on one post and simultaneously could not have lien on more than one post. 14. The aforesaid Rule provides that a government servant’s lien on a post stands terminated upon his acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. The petitioner’s service came to be confirmed by the High Court on 16.04.1998. In view thereof, from 16.04.1998, the petitioner’s lien from City Civil Court Ahmedabad stood terminated and the petitioner in view thereof is not entitled to get the benefit of upgraded pay scale and new designation of Principal Private Secretary from 25.05.1999, as the petitioner has lost the lien on the establishment of the City Civil Court. 15. In view thereof, from 16.04.1998, the petitioner’s lien from City Civil Court Ahmedabad stood terminated and the petitioner in view thereof is not entitled to get the benefit of upgraded pay scale and new designation of Principal Private Secretary from 25.05.1999, as the petitioner has lost the lien on the establishment of the City Civil Court. 15. Further, the petitioner chose to continue his service on the establishment of High Court of Gujarat and in view thereof, lost the lien in the City Civil Court and the consequent benefits of GR dated 25.05.1999 would not be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner’s appointment in the establishment of the High Court from 01.09.1990, was a directly recruited appointment and not a case of transfer as stated by the petitioner herein in the memo of the petition. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Private Secretary purely on temporary basis and probation for a period of one year and has not fulfilled the condition of completion of 15 years of service in the establishment of High Court of Gujarat to be entitled to extend the benefits of the GR dated 25.05.1999, in the establishment of High Court of Gujarat. 16. Further, the similarly situated employees had preferred SCA No. 10019 of 1993, seeking extension of benefits of higher pay-scale on the establishment of City Civil Court, on the basis of their service rendered at the City Civil Court, which came to be allowed by the order dated 20.08.1999. The said employees were extended the benefits of higher grade scale on qualifying the condition of nine years of service as per the GR dated 05.07.1991, on the basis of the service rendered by the respondents in the cadre of Private Secretaries in the City Civil Court in pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. Though such service shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority or for any purpose other than pay fixation, leave, pension. Thereafter, the Division Bench by order dated 28.07.2014, had quashed and set aside the order passed in SCA No. 10019 of 1993; however, directing that no recovery be made from the respondents. 17. Considering the facts of the present case and the position of law referred herein above and Rule 14(A)(d) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, no case is made out to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.