M. SALEEM CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).-The appellants in this case were initially appointed as junior clerks in the Board of Revenue in 1956 (except appellant No. 5 who was appointed in 1954) and were promoted as Assistants on various dates falling between 1966 and 1969. It is common case that they were permanent incumbents and were declared surplus on the break up of One Unit in 1970 and were 'absorbed in their own scale of pay' in the office of Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications & Works Department against existing vacancies by order dated 22-12- 1970 supplemented by order of 20-1-1971 of the Services & General Administration Department.
Later on in October 1972 the appellants were taken as Assistants in the newly-created Punjab Land Commission, which appears to have been created in connection with the implementation of the land reforms introduced vide M. L. R.
115. The controversy which has generated this appeal before us has arisen due to the reduction in the work load of the Punjab Land Commission and the impending repatriation of the appellants from the Land Commission and the refusal of the Communications & Works Department to accept them back. The position adopted by the Services and General Administration Department is that having once absorbed the appellants in the C & W Department, they had become functus officio in the matter and had no concern with the subsequent controversy. The appellants, however, claim the continuation of their lien in the Board of Revenue and therefore repatriation to this Department. The contending Department i.e., the Board of Revenue, Communication & Works Department, Punjab Land Commis--sion and the S&GAD have their own point of view which has generated a controversy. According to the appellants they were admittedly permanent incumbents of the Board of Revenue and had been absorbed in communication and Works Department on the firm and unequivocal assurance that their lien will be maintained in the Board of Revenue and that they will be liable to revert back to their parent Department. In support of this contention, in the first instance they rely upon the commitments made by the S& GAD in their letter dated 11-8-1970 which was addressed to the Assistant (General), Board of Revenue in reply to the latter's letter seeking clarifications about the status of the surplus staff of the Board of Revenue. In particular reliance is placed upon para. 2 (3)
Secondly, reliance is placed on the S&GAD's order dated 22-12-1970 supplemented by the letter dated 20-1-1971 absorbing the appellants in the Communication and Works Department against existing vacancies which were also qualified by the observations that permanent officials will retain their lien in their parent department till confirmed in the Communication and Works Department. It is further submitted that the aforementioned condition was reiterated in the consequential release orders passed by the Board of Revenue vide office orders dated 6-1-1971 and 29-1-1971. It is stressed that the status of the lien of the appellants in the Board of Revenue was so well established that in January 1972 on the occurrence of vacancies of Assistants in the Board of Revenue, that office invited options from the appellants to revert to their parent Department I.e., Board of Revenue, assuring again that their liens would be maintained even if they do not opt to revert and that their future service interests will continue to be safeguarded. Regarding the appointment of the appellants in the Land Commission it is submitted that the appel--lants had applied for the temporary posts of Assistants through the proper channel and it was with the concurrence of the Board of Revenue, their parent Department, that the Secretary, Punjab Land Commission appointed the appellants in that Department. Thus it is argued that their appointment in the Land Commission was not a fresh appointment but was a case of deputation with the concurrence of the parent Department This argument is further sought to be fortified by the appellants by referring to the S& GAD's letter addressed to the Secretary, Punjab Land Commission, dated 6-11-1973 in reply to the latter's query about the status of the appellants on their becoming surplus to their needs, in which the S&GAD had once again advised that the appellants having lien in the Board of Revenue could revert back to the Board of Revenue. The appellants also further rely upon the recent advice of the S&GAD to the Secretary, Board of Revenue in their letter dated 21-3- 1975 in which 'they have reiterated their earlier advice that the appellants have a right to be repatriated to the Board of Revenue. With these submissions it is urged that the appeals be accepted.
2. The sequence of events and the factual position as narrated above is mostly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is, however, urged that notwithstanding the various assurances extended to the appellants from various quarters with respect to the maintenance of their lien in the Board of Revenue, the matter was governed by the general policy laid down by the Government in the S&GAD for the absorption of staff rendered surplus on the event of the break of one Unit vide S&GAD's letter dated 27-3-1971 and as further elaborated in their letter of 16-3-1972. It is argued that these policy letters supersede all previous instructions. Para. 2(b) of letter dated 16- 3-1972 is particularly relied upon to support the contention that the absorption of the appellants in the Communication and Works Department was for good and irreversible. Another contention which was heavily relied upon by respondent No. 1 is that the appellants accepted fresh appointment as Assistants in the Punjab Land Commission as a result of which they disentitled themselves to all protections available to them vide the aforesaid policy letters of the S & GAD dated 27-3-1971 and 16-3-1972. It is thus canvassed that the appellants should face the exigencies of their service in the Punjab Land Commission which they had joined on their own volition. It is thus urged that the appellants are not entitled to reversion to the Board of Revenue or the Communication and Works Department and the appeal merits rejection.
3. We have heard the parties at length. We find that there has been a persistent chain of assurances given to the appellants about the maintenance of their lien and the protection of their consequent service rights in the Board of Revenue by various authorities, notable among them being the Board of Revenue (which now vehemently opposes this proposition and the S&GAD. It would be interesting to recount the salient features in the sequence of events.
4. In the very initial stages when the question of declaring staff as surplus as a sequel to the break up of one Units was in sight, the advice of the S&GAD about the status of lien of the surplus staff (appellants) was sought which was replied to in their letter dated 11-8-1970 later alla in the following terms:- "Only the confirmed hands will retain lien in their parent offices. As such, surplus confirmed official on absorption will not lose his right of reversion to his parent office as and when corresponding/higher vacancy becomes available; provided that the individual's lien will be terminated on confirmation in the office of absorption."
The S&GAD was the Department entrusted with the function of creating surplus pool and absorbing the surplus staff in various Departments. Consequently the orders of the S&GAD, dated 22j2-1970 and 20-1-1971 absorbing the appellants in the Communication and Works Department were qualified by the following condition "The officials, if permanent, will retain their lien in their parent Departments till they are confirmed in the Communication and Works Department."
It is noteworthy that the Board of Revenue itself did not forget to repeat similar assurance in their office order releasing the appellants to join the Communication and Works Department in the following terms "All these officials are permanent hands and (heir lien will be retained in this office in terms of para. 2 (3) of the Services and General Administration Department Memorandum No. SO (WFI) S&GAD- -1-7/70 dated I1-8-1970."
Quite in keeping with the consistent position that the appellants continued to maintain their service right in the Board of Revenue, the appellants were formally offered to opt for the posts of temporary assistants when such vacancies occurred there, vide their letter of 20-1-1972 which further assured them that "In case you are not interested to come back as Assistant for the present you will continue to retain your lien in this office on the post, substantively held by you and all your future interests will continue to be safeguarded as provided under the rules and Government instructions issued from time to time. On reversion you will be assigned a place in the seniority list according to your original seniority vis-a-vis the Assistants at present working in the Board of Revenue or any other surplus Assistant who may, at any time, opt to revert to this office."
With such rather vehement persistence in repeating the assurance of maintenance of the lien of service right of the appellants by the Board o Revenue, we are left with no doubt in our minds that there was no confusion or reservations in the mind of the authorities of the S&GAD in this respect.
5. In the face of the above position, we are not at all impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that such firm assurances were in one sweep superseded by the subsequent policy framed by the S&GAD in 1971 for the absorption of surplus staff. We are further fortified in this view by the fact, that the S&GAD did not resale till the last from their earlier view expressed in their letter dated 11-8-1970 and embodied in the absorption order dated 22-12-1970 and maintained the same position even after the issuance of their policy letters of 27-3-1972 and 16-3-1972 relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The S&GAD stuck -to their view in their letters dated 6-11-1973 addressed to the Secretary, Land Commission, Punjab and once again in their letter addressed to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, as late as 21-3-1975. Wetherefore, repel this argument on behalf of respondent No. 1.
6. The second argument on behalf of the respondents, that by accepting the posts of Assistants in the Punjab Land Commission the appel--lants broke nexus with the surplus pool and their previous service, is also equally misconceived in the light of the facts reported in the reply filed on behalf of the Punjab Land Commission and which facts have not been controverted. It is stated that appellants Nos. 1 and 3 who applied for the posts of assistants in the Land Commission through the proper channel were selected on purely temporary basis and subject to concurrence of the Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue who, it is noted, did not disown them but took strong objection to their selection so that the posting orders were with held. The subsequent request of the Land Commission to suggest a panel of 5 names for appointment as Assistant was turned down by the Board of Revenue on the ground of increased work load in the Board of Revenue due to rehabilitation work of war-displaced persons and also on account of the bar on promotion due to which even senior clerks could not be sent on promotion as Assistants. It was however advised by the Board of Revenue that the vacancies in the Punjab Land Commission may be filled up by recalling surplus assistants of the Board of Revenue who were working in other Departments and were also willing. The Board of Revenue also supplied the names in order of seniority of such Assistants, which included the names of the appellants along with a number of other Assistants also working in the Communication and Works Department' and from some other Departments as well. 1t is thus stated that it was under these conditions that the appellants came to serve in the Punjab Land Commission. We may observe that we have seen the original noting of which photostat copy has been placed on record.
7. Some controversy has been raised about the correct import of the following part of the noting appearing at the end of the proposal mentioned above submitted by the Assistant Secretary to Secretary Establishment: "Would there be no legal/technical bitch in the way of repatriation."
(Sd.)
No Sir.
(Sd.)
It has been argued before us by the appellants that the above noting indicates that it was said that there would be no legal/technical bitch in the repatriation of the staff. This position has, however, been controverted by the Board of Revenue who have also given their submissions in writing on the point. It is argued that the correct connotation of the observations should be taken to be that: No Sir, there will be a bitch------." It is, however, conceded that the observation is not happily worded and is capable of both the interpretations, i.e. As canvassed by the appellants and as contended by the Board of Revenue. We are, however, not impressed by the arguments of the Board of Revenue on this point and accept the version of the appellants. If the intention was as argued by the Board of Revenue that the technical or legal hitch would have been elaborated and discussed in the subsequent noting but we find noting of the sort, instead it smoothly leads in a routine fashion to the orders of appointment of the appellants in the Punjab Land Commission.
8. The foregoing position clearly belies the contentions that the appellants applied on their own for the posts in the Land Commission and were accepted as such by that Commission as fresh recruits. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the respondents. Similarly there is no substance in the arguments that the lien of the appellants were suspended under rule 3.16 of the C.
S. R. Punjab Vol. I Part I which operated as bar to their reversion to the Department. Rule 3.16 regulates the 'suspension' of lien and not the termination of lien. Suspension of lien by its very nature is tentative and reversible. According to note 2 under rule 3.16 (d) even if a post is filled substantively against a suspended lien, the appointment will be termed as provisional appointment and the lien will also be provisional. Rather our attention is adverted to rule 3.17 ibid vide which the lien of a Government servant cannot be terminated even with his consent till such time as he acquires alien elsewhere. We have not been shown any orders either of suspension or termination of the lien of the appellants. This argument of the respondents also fails.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal succeeds and we hold that the appellants continue to maintain their lien in the Board of Revenue and are entitled to all service benefits flowing therefrom. As regards C the actual position of the appellants in a particular Department or organization, we feel that it is purely an administrative matter with which the Tribunal not concerned.