Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shivani vs Aiims on 24 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 876/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/876/2025
Pronounced on: 24.02.2026
Reserved on: 02.02.206
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Shivani, Age 30 years, D/o Sh. Yashpal, Working as Nursing Officer
AIIMS Delhi R/o # 325, 3rd Floor, Masjid Moth, South Extension Part-2,
Delhi-110049 (Group-B)
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Barjesh Mittal
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North
Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Executive Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda,
Jodhpur Romana, Mandi Dabwali Road, Bathinda, Punjab-151001
3. Deputy Director (Administration), All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Bathinda, Jodhpur Romana, Mandi Dabwali Road, Bathinda, Punjab-
151001
... .Respondents
Digitally signed
by MAMTA
WADHWA
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr.
Shashank Sharma
2- O.A. No. 876/2025
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
i) The impugned Office Order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) accepting Technical Resignation without Lien and Circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) be quashed / set aside.
iii) A direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent AIIMS, Bathinda authorities to re-consider the case of the applicant for acceptance of her Technical Resignation with Lien as per DoPT OM (A-8) keeping in view the fact that she already stood deemed confirmed (A-10) prior to submission of technical resignation on 09.01.2024 and consequently, to allow her to rejoin respondent AIIMS Bathinda as per her seniority position on 09.01.2024 with all admissible consequential benefits to which she may be held entitled to viz, seniority, promotion, pay fixation etc. forthwith in the interest of justice.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, being SC category, pursuant to advertisement for the post of Nursing Officer (Sister Grade-II) in AIIMS Bathinda, on being selected, was offered appointment vide order dated 02.05.2020 (Annexure A-3) and joined Digitally signed by MAMTA her duties on 29.05.2021. As per the offer of appointment, the WADHWA probation period was two years. However, vide office order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure A-4), the probation period of the entire batch of Nursing Officers Grade-II was extended en bloc upto 30.06.2024. 3- O.A. No. 876/2025
3. The AIIMS, New Delhi issued advertisement for Nursing Officers Recruitment Common Eligibility Test (NORCET-5). The applicant sought No Objection Certificate from respondent No.2 for appearing in NORCET- 5 and the same was granted alongwith other candidates. After qualifying the written examination, the applicant again sought NOC/Experience Certificate for document verification and vide communication dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure A-5), respondent No.3 issued NOC clearly stipulating that in the event of her selection, she would be relieved as per rules.
4. The applicant was offered appointment as Nursing Officer at AIIMS New Delhi vide office order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure A-6), wherein her name appeared at Serial No.77 in UR category. Thereafter, she submitted technical resignation on 09.01.2024 and respondent No.3 vide office order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7) relieved her w.e.f. 09.01.2024 (A/N). An experience certificate dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7) certified that she had worked from 29.05.2021 to 09.01.2024 was also issued.
5. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued Circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) regarding issuance of NOC to apply outside AIIMS Bathinda, stipulating condition that in cases, where NOC is sought within six months upto two years or till confirmation, technical benefits would not be granted. Para 2 of the circular provided that after confirmation, Digitally signed by MAMTA employees would get all benefits as per OM dated 27.08.2018 WADHWA (Annexure A-8).
6. The applicant submitted representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure A-9) seeking grant of technical resignation with lien. Vide 4- O.A. No. 876/2025 office order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-10), she was deemed confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 upon successful completion of probation. However, vide impugned office order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1), her technical resignation dated 09.01.2024 was accepted without lien.
7. Aggrieved, she submitted representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure A-11) followed by reminder dated 05.08.2025 (colly with Annexure A-11), but no response was received. She also relied upon minutes of Institute Body meetings dated 12.09.2023 and 20.07.2024 and Governing Body meeting dated 13.03.2024 to contend that no agenda or approval existed for denial of lien. She placed reliance upon orders dated 02.01.2025 and 18.12.2023 issued by PGIMER Chandigarh and PGIMS Rohtak respectively (Annexure A-12), seniority list dated 15.04.2024 and promotion order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure A-13), and DoPT OM dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure A-14).
8. It is contended that the applicant served from 29.05.2021 to 09.01.2024; that she stood deemed confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 (Annexure A-10); that she had obtained NOC prior to applying and before document verification (Annexure A-5); that she was relieved as per rules (Annexure A-7); that the circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) itself provides grant of benefits after confirmation; that the circular is prospective and cannot apply to resignation dated 09.01.2024; that no approval of Institute Body or Governing Body existed; that Digitally signed by MAMTA respondent No.2 lacked authority under AIIMS Act, 2019 to alter service WADHWA conditions; and that denial of lien is arbitrary, nonest, violative of DoPT OMs and discriminatory especially when similarly situated employees in other autonomous bodies were granted lien.
5- O.A. No. 876/2025
9. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in their written statement, submitted that the applicant was appointed as Nursing Officer Grade-II pursuant to advertisement dated 02.05.2020 (Annexure A-3) and joined on 29.05.2021. The probation period of two years was extended en bloc for the entire batch vide office order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure A-4) upto 30.06.2024. It is stated that AIIMS New Delhi issued Notice No. 202/2023 dated 16.10.2023 for NORCET-5; the applicant was granted NOC vide communication dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure-D) and thereafter vide NOC dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure A-5) stipulating that in the event of selection she would be relieved as per rules. The applicant submitted technical resignation on 01.12.2023 and was relieved w.e.f. 09.01.2024 vide office order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7), and according to the respondents, there was no procedural irregularity in the said action.
10. The respondents further submitted that grant of lien and benefits of technical resignation are governed by the confirmation status of the employee at the time of resignation. The applicant, according to the respondents, was under extended probation at the time of her resignation and relieving, and was not formally confirmed. The confirmation order was issued only on 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-10) w.e.f. 29.05.2023, long after her relieving. It is contended that the resignation letter dated 01.12.2023 did not contain any request for lien Digitally signed and that lien cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Reliance is placed by MAMTA WADHWA upon the Minutes of the 3rd Governing Body Meeting dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure R-1) to submit that under the AIIMS Bathinda Act the power to grant lien vests in the President, delegated to the Executive Director, and that grant of lien is discretionary. In support, reliance is placed 6- O.A. No. 876/2025 upon Anupam Roy v. State of Assam, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 2258, wherein it has been held that lien is not an absolute right and is subject to employer‟s discretion.
11. The respondents further contend that the Circular dated 11.05.2024 (Annexure A-2) was issued with due approval and is in consonance with DoPT instructions, reiterating that only confirmed employees are eligible for technical resignation benefits and even then lien remains discretionary. It is submitted that the applicant sought lien only subsequently vide representation dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure R-
2), much after her relieving, and that the post vacated by her has already been filled, rendering retrospective grant of lien administratively impossible. The instances cited by the applicant vide orders dated 02.01.2025 and 18.12.2023 (Annexure A-12) are stated to be distinguishable and not applicable. On these grounds, the respondents submit that the impugned office order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) accepting technical resignation without lien is legal and valid and the Original Application deserves dismissal.
12. The applicant filed rejoinder and in rebuttal to the plea of the respondents that the applicant was not confirmed at the time of resignation, it is asserted that office order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-10) categorically deems her confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 upon successful completion of two years‟ service in terms of appointment Digitally signed by MAMTA letter dated 02.05.2020 (Annexure A-3), and that her relieving on WADHWA 09.01.2024 vide office order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-7) was subsequent to such deemed confirmation. It is contended that the confirmation order cannot be read in isolation and that the respondents 7- O.A. No. 876/2025 are approbating and reprobating by simultaneously stating that lien is governed by rules and yet claiming it to be purely discretionary.
13. The applicant has further contended that the plea of discretionary power under the AIIMS Bathinda Act is vague and unsupported by any statutory provision placed on record. The deliberation allegedly made vide Minutes dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure R-1) is stated to be prospective in nature and incapable of affecting rights crystallized in January 2024. In support of her claim, the applicant has placed reliance upon communication dated 25.11.2025 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (PMSSY Division) (Annexure A-15), whereby it has been directed that DoPT instructions, including OM dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure A-14), shall apply to all new AIIMS and that benefits of lien and pay protection are to be extended accordingly. It is contended that the said OM provides for retention of lien of a permanent Government servant in the parent department for two years and, since she stood confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023, the impugned order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) accepting technical resignation without lien is contrary to binding instructions.
14. The applicant has also disputed the respondents‟ plea that the post has already been filled, asserting that numerous posts of Nursing Officer remain vacant and referring to subsequent recruitment Digitally signed by MAMTA notifications advertising 327 posts under NORCET-9. She has further WADHWA relied upon office order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure A-16), whereby the entire batch of Nursing Officers was deemed confirmed on completion of two years‟ service from the date of joining, to contend 8- O.A. No. 876/2025 that the extension of probation vide order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure A-4) cannot operate to her prejudice and that confirmation relates back to 29.05.2023 for all intents and purposes. It is lastly contended that no separate request for lien was required in the resignation dated 01.12.2023, as retention of lien flows from statutory rules and DoPT instructions and there can be no estoppel against law; hence, the action of the respondents in issuing order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
15. I have gone through the pleadings, perused the material placed on file and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
16. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed as a Nursing Officer at AIIMS Bathinda pursuant to her appointment letter (A-3) and joined service accordingly. She completed two years of regular service on 29.05.2023 and was subsequently deemed confirmed retrospectively w.e.f. 29.05.2023 vide office order dated 08.05.2025 (A-10), read with office order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure A-16) whereby the entire batch was deemed confirmed on completion of two years‟ service. The applicant applied for appointment in another AIIMS New Delhi through proper channel and her technical resignation dated 01.12.2023 was accepted; she was relieved w.e.f. 09.01.2024 vide office order dated 12.01.2024 (A-7). It is also undisputed that vide impugned order dated 12.07.2025 Digitally signed by MAMTA (A-1) her technical resignation was accepted without grant of lien. The WADHWA applicability of the DoPT O.M. dated 24.11.2022 (A-14), the Master Circular on Lien/Technical Resignation issued by DoPT vide O.M. dated 27.08.2018, and the communication dated 25.11.2025 issued by the 9- O.A. No. 876/2025 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Annexure A-15), making DoPT instructions applicable to all new AIIMS, is borne out from the record.
17. The question for consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified in accepting the applicant‟s technical resignation without retaining lien in the parent department, despite her confirmed status and the binding DoPT instructions governing lien and technical resignation?
18. The principal contention of the applicant is that she stood confirmed in service w.e.f. 29.05.2023, as evidenced by office order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure A-10), and therefore was a permanent Government servant at the time, her technical resignation was accepted in January 2024. The respondents do not dispute issuance of the said confirmation order. Once confirmation is deemed retrospectively from 29.05.2023, the applicant‟s status as a confirmed employee on the date of relieving (09.01.2024) cannot be denied. The respondents cannot read the relieving order dated 12.01.2024 (A-7) in isolation while ignoring the subsequent confirmation order which expressly grants retrospective effect.
19. The core controversy revolves around the applicant‟s entitlement to retention of lien upon technical resignation. The respondents do not dispute that the applicant stood deemed confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 in terms of office order dated 08.05.2025 (A-10) and order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure A-16). The plea of the respondents that at the Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA time of relieving the applicant was not confirmed and was continuing on extended probation is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained. It is an admitted position on record that the applicant has been deemed confirmed retrospectively w.e.f. 29.05.2023 vide office order dated 10- O.A. No. 876/2025 08.05.2025. The legal effect of retrospective confirmation is that the applicant is to be treated as having acquired confirmed status from the said date for all intents and purposes. Once confirmation relates back to a date prior to her relieving on 09.01.2024, the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that she was merely on extended probation on the date of acceptance of her technical resignation. The subsequent issuance of a confirmation order with retrospective effect completely obliterates the basis of the respondents‟ objection, and their plea, therefore, deserves to be rejected.
20. The Master Circular on Lien/Technical Resignation issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide O.M. dated 27.08.2018 squarely governs the issue. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs relating to the issue in hand are extracted hereunder:-
LIEN
14. 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.Digitally signed by MAMTA
WADHWA 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;
11- O.A. No. 876/2025
(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. Retention of lien for appointment in another central government office/state government i. A permanent Government servant appointed in another Central Government Department/Office/ State Government, has to resign from his parent department unless he reverts to that department within a period of 2 years, or 3 years in exceptional cases. An undertaking to abide by this condition may be taken from him at the time of forwarding of his application to other departments / offices.
ii. The exceptional cases may be when the Government servant is not confirmed in the department/office where he has joined within a period of 2 years. In such cases he may be permitted to retain the lien in the parent department/ office for one more year. While granting such permission, a fresh undertaking similar to the one indicated above may be taken from the employee. iii. Timely action should be taken to ensure extension/ reversion/ resignation of the employees to their parent cadres on completion of the prescribed period of 2/3 years. In cases, where employees do not respond to instructions, suitable action should be initiated against them for violating the agreement/ undertaking given by them as per (i) and (ii) above and for termination of their lien. Adequate opportunity may, however, be given to the officer prior to such consideration.
iv. Temporary Government servants will be required to sever connections with the Government in case of their selection for outside posts. No lien will be retained in such cases. Digitally signed 18. Termination of Lien A Government servant's lien on a post by MAMTA may in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent if WADHWA 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 12- O.A. No. 876/2025 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."
21. The Paragraph 14 of the said Master Circular defines lien under FR-9(13) as "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," and clarifies that the benefit of lien is enjoyed by all employees, who are confirmed in the post/service/cadre or declared to have completed probation Undisputedly, in the present case, the applicant having been deemed confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2023 clearly fell within the category of employees entitled to the benefit of lien.
22. Paragraph 16 of the said Master Circular further provides that a Government servant, who has acquired a lien on a post retains that lien, inter alia, while holding another post or during joining time, and ceases to hold lien on the previous post only upon acquiring lien on another permanent post. Thus, unless and until the applicant acquired a lien substantively on a permanent post in the new department, her lien in the Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA parent department could not be extinguished.
23. Most significantly, Paragraph 17 of the Master Circular provides that a permanent Government servant appointed in another Central 13- O.A. No. 876/2025 Government Department/Office or State Government has to resign from the parent department unless he reverts within a period of two years (extendable to three years in exceptional cases). This provision implicitly mandates retention of lien in the parent department for the prescribed period of two years. It further clarifies that temporary Government servants alone are required to sever connection without retention of lien. The applicant, being a confirmed/permanent employee, cannot be equated with a temporary Government servant.
24. Paragraph 18 of the Master Circular leaves no manner of doubt. It categorically stipulates 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. 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." This provision directly demolishes the respondents‟ contention that the applicant did not specifically request retention of lien in her resignation letter. The Master Circular expressly prohibits denial of lien on that ground. Therefore, the respondents‟ action in relieving the applicant without lien and subsequently passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2025 (A-1) is contrary to binding executive instructions and Digitally signed beyond scope.
by MAMTA WADHWA
25. The communication dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Annexure A-15) further reinforces this position by directing that DoPT rules/instructions on technical resignation, 14- O.A. No. 876/2025 including lien and pay protection, shall form part of the service conditions for faculty and non-faculty of all new AIIMS. The respondents have not produced any statutory provision overriding these instructions. In absence of any exclusion, the DoPT Master Circular and subsequent O.M.s are binding on the respondents.
26. The plea that grant of lien is discretionary or subject to approval of higher authority is unsupported by any rule placed on record. Administrative discretion cannot override clear executive instructions issued under the Fundamental Rules. Once such instructions are in force, the authorities are bound to follow them and cannot act contrary to them on the ground of discretion. Moreover, the authorities exercising discretion must give some reasoning or logic to exercise discretion which lack in this case.
27. The argument that the post has been filled up or that vacancies have reduced is immaterial. Paragraph 15 of the Master Circular merely contemplates reversion of the junior-most employee if entitlement exceeds available posts; it does not authorize outright denial of lien. Administrative inconvenience cannot defeat a vested right flowing from statutory rules.
28. In view of the above analysis, this Tribunal holds that the applicant was a confirmed/permanent Government servant as on the date of acceptance of her technical resignation and she was entitled to Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA retention of lien in the parent department for a period of two years. The impugned order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) accepting technical resignation without lien is contrary to binding DoPT instructions and is therefore illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order to 15- O.A. No. 876/2025 the extent it denies retention of lien is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the applicant as having retained lien in AIIMS Bathinda in terms of the DoPT Master Circular dated 27.08.2018 and related O.M.s for the prescribed period, with all consequential benefits. The Original Application is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) Dated: 24.02.2026 „mw‟ Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA