Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying that lien could be of 5 years and we have perused the same. It was also stated therein that the petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands and had not disclosed about the letter dated 11.3.2003 to the respondent wherein he had himself consented to the termination of his lien. The relevant part of the said letter reads as under:-

As you are aware, I relinquished the charge of the post of Financial Controller and Secretary on 7th Sept. 2000 and took charge as Managing Director of Hotel Corporation of India Limited w.e.f. 8.9.2000, as per the orders issued by Government of India. Initially, I had retained lien on my substantive post in Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corporation Ltd. for a period of two years, which had expired on 7th Sept. 2002 thereafter, I had made a request for transfer of my terminal benefit viz. gratuity, leave to the credit of Hotel Corporation of India Ltd.

9. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had by his conduct acquiesced to the termination of his lien and the order of termination of lien was validly passed by the respondent Corporation.

10. The petitioner's contention is that his letter dated 11.3.2003 has been read out of context and he had not acquiesced termination of his lien. It is further contended that lien of a government servant as per FR 14 (a) cannot be terminated even with his consent if the same would leave him without any lien on any post. It is also contended that the petitioner was gravely prejudiced as he was given no opportunity to explain and the appellant was not even confirmed as the Managing Director in Hotel Corporation of India on the date of order terminating his lien, i.e., 3.1.2003. Hotel Corporation of India made confirmation order for remaining period only on 27.3.2003. Challenge to the order of termination of lien is also made on the ground that the representation against order was disposed of by Managing Director, Chief Executive of respondent and he was not competent to dispose of appeal in view of service rules. Termination of lien amounted to termination of his service, which could have been done only by appointing authority or a higher ranking authority. The appellant was appointed by Chairman of the company as per Page 911 rules and his lien could have been terminated only by chairman and not by a lower ranking officer, i.e., by the Managing Director.

13. It is normal and routine procedure that when an employee is on deputation from one department to another department, his entire service record is sent to the new department where he is posted for deputation period so that all benefits which had accrued to the individual are known to the department where the individual has been posted on deputation. The writing of this letter does not show a conduct of the petitioner giving up his lien. No doubt he has Page 912 mentioned that his lien for the period of two years has come to an end and hence funds should be transferred. But his conduct on coming to know of the letter of termination of lien by the department shows that his intention was not giving up any of his rights which were due to him. The principle underlying the doctrine of acquiescence is silence on the part of the petitioner to assert his right even after coming to know the truth has caused prejudice to the adverse party. In this case, the petitioner when learnt about the termination of his lien immediately wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 protesting against his termination of his lien. There is no dispute about the fact that the letter dated 3.3.2003 by which the lien of the petitioner was terminated, was addressed to the petitioner at a wrong address, i.e., Hotel Centaur Hotel, which had already been divested and sold.

23. We consider that the writ petition should be allowed even on the ground of discrimination since petitioner was discriminated from others as is seen from the table above.

Page 915

24. The LPA is allowed, order of the respondent dated 22.12.2002/ 3.1.2003 terminating the lien of the petition/appellant is quashed and the petitioner shall have lien for a period of five years from 7.9.2000.

25. Since the petitioner had not been allowed to join his parent department on the ground of termination of his lien, he shall be allowed to join the post of Finance Controller & Secretary in DTDTC immediately. In case the petitioner's post is not vacant, he shall be given an equivalent post with all benefits.