State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs S.N. Tiwari & Ors on 16 March, 2009
4.6 It is submitted that in her bio-data submitted to the Promotion
Board, she specifically stated that she was attending the Board while on
leave. It is submitted that in the said bio-data it was stated by her that
she received a letter from CAIR on 29.03.2019, stating that she has
been appointed to the post of Scientist G at CAIR, DRDO. This was only
a statement of fact and the same cannot be said to be construed as the
12
respondent’s acceptance of DRDO’s invalid order appointing her as
Scientist-G.
4.7 It is further submitted that having worked as Scientist-H with the
NTRO, which was a direct recruitment, she could not have reverted/
repatriated as Scientist-G to her parent department – DRDO.
4.8 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant on her
lien having continued with the DRDO is concerned, it is submitted that
the said provision is in favour of the respondent and it is the respondent/
employee, who had the discretion to continue the lien. It is submitted
that there cannot be any automatic lien, that too, at the instance of the
employer and/or subsequent employer. It is submitted that the lien is a
right of a Government employee and the same is at the option of
respondent and respondent cannot be forced to exercise her lien.
4.9 Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 700 (paras
17 and 19) and Ramlal Khurana (Dead) By LRs. Vs. State of Punjab
and Ors., (1989) 4 SCC 99 (para 8), it is vehemently submitted that as
observed and held by this Court, a lien is entirely at the discretion of the
employee. It is submitted that therefore, an employer cannot thrust a
13
lien upon an employee, as it will have a detrimental impact on the
employee’s position and prospects.