Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The case of the appellant is that while he was holding the substantive post of Lekhpal, he entered into service in the Consolidation Department only on deputation, that the communication dated 10.6.63 sent from the office of Collector of Moradabad and signed by the Land Records Officer would clearly show that his lien had been fixed in Amroha Tehsil in the vacancy of Shri Harish Chandra. The counter case of the respondent is that the appellant was never holding the post of Lekhpal in a substantive capacity and that his appointment in the Consolidation Department as Consolidator was never on deputation, but on the other hand, it was on a selection by the Selection Board, that he was holding that post of Consolidator on temporary basis and that he was holding no lien to the post of Lekhpal.

12. At the outset it may be mentioned that the appellant has not satisfactorily substantiated his claim that he was holding the post of Lekhpal in a substantive capacity except placing reliance on a letter dated 10.6.63 which letter is purported to have been sent to him after nearly 9 years of his selection as Consolidator. The relevant portion of the order of appointment as Lekhpal which is annexed to the appeal records as Annexure P-12 reads :

Order Shri Triveni Shankar is appointed Lekhpal on temporary basis. Sd/- M.A. Zaidi S.D.O. Moradabad 6.4.1953 Thereafter the appellant was selected as Consolidator on 5.11.1954.

15. Mr. Gopal Subramanium appearing for the appellant took much pain in construing the expression 'lien' with reference to the definition of that word as found in the "UP. Fundamental Rules" and contended that the appellant should have been reverted back only to his original post and not terminated. In the counter affidavit (Annexure P. IV) filed on behalf of the second respondent, namely, S.D.M., Moradabad before the Tribunal, it is stated thus :

The petitioner did work as Lekhpal in an officiating capacity from 6.4.1953 to 15.11.1954 in Tilokpur Ghond District Moradabad...the petitioner was selected for the post of Consolidator in the Consolidation Department and he took training in Training center Rampur since 16.11.1954 to 11.2.1955. But it is absolutely wrong to say that he held a lien on the post of Lekhpal at the time of his appointment as Consolidator in the Department of Consolidation. As a matter of fact, he held regular post of a Lekhpal in a very short period in an officiating capacity and thereafter it so transpired that he had applied for the post of Consolidator for which he was selected and joined the post directly. No deputation was granted to him simply because of the fact he was not holding the post of Lekhpal in a substantive capacity.

In 1966, vide Letter No. 959/7SK-65 dated 25.3.1966 and 2061/7 SK-65, dated 23.6.66 the petitioner was asked by the Department to submit any proof if he had by which it could be proved that he was holding the post of regular Lekhpal prior to his appointment as Consolidator and that he held any lien to the post of regular Lekhpal. Neither any proof was available in the office of the deponent nor could be supplied by the claimant himself. Therefore, the matter was finally decided that he had no lien on the post of Lekhpal whatsoever.