Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivani Jain vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 19 January, 2026
1
CWP-1168--2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
141 CWP
CWP-1168-2026
Date of Decision: January 19, 2026
Shivani Jain
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and others
...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. H.C Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kinshuk Nanda,, Advocate for respondents
respondents-PSPCL.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P P-10)) issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner's request for withdrawal of her resignation and reinstatement as Assistant Manager (IT Systems) has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the he petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (IT Systems) in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) on 15.03.2024. Prior to joining PSPCL, she had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 ::: 2 CWP-1168--2026 Professor (Computer Science) and was selected on 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-3).
3). However, the said recruitment process was subject to an interim stay granted by this Court in CWP-22446-2021, CWP 2021, and was ultimately quashed vide order dated 08.09.2022. Subsequently, Subsequently, upon reversal of the said order in LPA-829-2022, 2022, the petitioner was allotted Government College Roshanwala (Bhawanigarh), Sangrur as her place of posting as Assistant Professor (Computer Science) on 23.09.2024. Consequently, the petitioner tendered her resignation from the post of Assistant Manager (IT) vide letter dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-5), P 5), which was duly accepted on 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-6).
P 6). She thereafter joined Government College Roshanwala (Bhawanigarh), Sangrur on 01.10.2024 (Annexure P P-7). However, the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) was subsequently quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), P 8), as a result of which the petitioner's appointment also stood annulled. Left with with no alternative, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.07.2025 seeking permission to rejoin the post of Assistant Manager (IT) in PSPCL. The said request was, however, rejected vide order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-10).
P 10).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent could not controvert the fact that the petitioner was still on probation when she applied for withdrawal of her resignation and consequently her lien in the respondent corporation was still unbroken.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 ::: 3 CWP-1168--2026
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly a bare perusal of Annexure P P-5 5 (Application of Resignation) and Annexure P-6 P 6 (Acceptance of Termination) portrays that the resignation took place with permission to join another appointment. A perusal of the the Advertisement (Annexure P P-3)
3) indicates that the appointees were to be placed on probation for three years. Consequently, the petitioner remained a probationer even after accepting the appointment in the Department of Higher Education, while retaining a lien with the respondent corporation.
6. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.R Patil Vs Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, 2023 INSC 796 while speaking through Justice J.K Maheshwari, observed that, "16. On the said issue, the law has been w well-settled settled by this Court in the case of "Ramlal Khurana (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (1989) 4 SCC 99", wherein this Court observed that 'lien' is not a word of art and it connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed, meaning thereby, the appointment of government servant on the said post must be substantive as he/she cannot hold two posts simultaneously in two different cadres and maintain lien on both of them at the same time. Further, in the the case of "Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524", while primarily dealing the question of acquisition of lien, this Court has observed that a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier. confirmed 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 ::: 4 CWP-1168--2026
17. In a 3-Judge 3 Judge Bench judgment in the case of "State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700", while interpreting the word 'lien' against the post appointed substantively with respect to another post, this Court held as thus:
"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 ight of a civil servant to hold the post 12substantively 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.""
7. In the present case, the petitioner was on probation in the Department of Higher Education, Government of Punjab and was never confirmed. Her Her lien on the post of Assistant Manager (IT Systems), therefore, could not be deemed terminated. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 578, which while Inder Singh v State of Haryana 2008 (3) SCT 578 ile relying on the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments of in Ram Lal Jurana (dead) by Lrs v. State of Punjab and Others, 1989(4) (sic) SLR, State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and another, 1976(1) SLR 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 ::: 5 CWP-1168--2026 Prithvi Singh and another etc, 1976(1) SLR 55 and 191, T.R. Sharma v. Prithvi State of Punjab and another v. Teja Singh and Others, 2007(2) SCT 554 :
2007(2) RAJ 232 : 2007(3) RSJ 249, made the following observation, "26. From the reading of the above judgments, following principles of law, w, keeping in view the relevant provision of statutory rules are discernible :
i) Lien connotes the right of an employee to hold the post substantively to which he was appointed appointed;
ii) that once an employee is confirmed on a post, he acquires the lien and that shall be maintained and he shall not be deprived thereof even with his consent till he acquires a lien in accordance with the rules on another post;
iii) No employee can have two liens simultaneously against two posts in two different cadres;
iv) Lien is not automatically suspended on appointment any of substantive capacity to permanent post outside the cadre and the competent authority is bound to pass an order for suspending lien.
v) An employee continues to retain lien on the post on which he is confirmed firmed even while he is holding another post on temporary or officiating basis."
8. Moreover, the impugned order violates principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted. The respondent's action is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.R Patil (supra) laid that the lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post post.. The intention of this 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 ::: 6 CWP-1168--2026 protection is to protect the past service of the government servant in cases where the government servant is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation ion period or for any other reason.
10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 (Annexure P P-10)
10) is hereby set aside.
The respondents-Corporation respondents Corporation is directed to consider the claim of the petitionerr and pass a speaking order accordingly, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE January 19, 19 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 23:49:59 :::