National Technical Research Organization & Others Versus Dipti Deodhare

National Technical Research Organization & Others Versus Dipti Deodhare

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2023

National Technical Research Organization & Others ..Appellants

Versus

Dipti Deodhare ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the National Technical

Research Organization and others, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied

with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 10867/2021,

by which the High Court, while allowing the said writ petition preferred by

the respondent herein and setting aside order dated 31.05.2021 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing O.A. No.

1

170/1318/2019, has directed that the order dated 12.02.2019 issued by

the appellant(s) shall be read as an order of discharge simpliciter and

that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the

benefit of past service that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her

terminal benefits. The High Court has further made it clear that the

respondent – original writ petitioner would be entitled to all such benefits

as are permissible to her on the premise that she held the post of

Scientist ‘H’ and the last drawn pay in that post would be the criteria for

settling all her benefits.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner joined the

services of Defence Research Development Organization (hereinafter

referred to as ‘DRDO’) on 12.09.1988, as Scientist ‘B’. That she got

periodical promotions while working with the DRDO. That on 1.7.2013,

she was promoted as Scientist ‘G’ and was heading the Intelligent

Systems and Robotics Division in Centre for Artificial Intelligence and

Robotics (for short, ‘CAIR’) of DRDO at Bangalore. That in the month of

January, 2018, the NTRO issued a recruitment notification to fill up two

posts of Scientist ‘H’ in Level 15 of the pay matrix. Initially, the

notification stated that the recruitment was to be made on deputation

including short term contract basis. However, subsequently, a

2

corrigendum was published in the month of January, 2018 to fill up these

posts on deputation (including short term)/absorption, failing which, on

direct recruitment basis. The original writ petitioner, who was holding the

post of Scientist ‘G’ in Level 14 of the pay matrix at CAIR, DRDO,

applied for the post of Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO through her parent

department, i.e., DRDO. Consequent to the approval of the

Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for appointment in NTRO as

Scientist ‘H” dated 10.05.2018, the original writ petitioner was issued an

offer of appointment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer

of appointment including probation for a period of one year. On being

selected and appointed as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO on direct recruitment

basis, the respondent – original writ petitioner tendered her technical

resignation from the post of Scientist ‘G’ in DRDO, which came to be

accepted on 22.6.2018 and DRDO relieved her to take up the new

appointment in NTRO.

2.1 The original writ petitioner joined NTRO as Scientist ‘H’ on

26.2.2018 on direct recruitment basis with a probation period of one

year. However, thereafter while she was on probation as Scientist ‘H’ in

NTRO, the ACC vide order dated 12.02.2019 granted approval for her

premature repatriation from the post of Scientist ‘H’ (on probation) in

NTRO to her parent department cadre – DRDO with immediate effect.

3

Accordingly, the respondent was relieved from NTRO on 12.02.2019

with instructions to report to her parent cadre – DRDO. Pursuant to the

same, she reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO on 13.02.2019 and

simultaneously she submitted another application requesting the

Chairman, DRDO to issue formal orders for her appointment in DRDO,

after repatriation from NTRO. She also requested the DRDO to issue

formal orders to appoint her on a suitable post in the rank of Scientist ‘H’

in DRDO. Awaiting formal orders, she requested DRDO for three

months leave on 19.2.2019. Vide approval dated 10.03.2019, NTRO

conveyed approval of DRDO Headquarters of her joining at DRDO w.e.f.

13.02.2019 in the parent cadre as Scientist ‘G’ upon her premature

repatriation from NTRO (Scientist ‘H’ on probation). That thereafter, the

original writ petitioner requested NTRO to reinstate her and treat her

application dated 19.03.2019 as three months’ notice from 13.02.2019,

for voluntary retirement.

2.2 It appears that in the month of April, 2019, the case of the original

writ petitioner for promotion from Scientist ‘G’ to Scientist ‘H’ in DRDO

came to be considered and she was informed to participate in the

assessment for promotion. The original writ petitioner submitted her biodata for such promotion and participated in the assessment. However,

she was found ‘unfit’. Vide communication dated 13.11.2019, the

4

respondent was directed to report to CIAR, DRDO to join duty by

16.12.2019, failing which disciplinary action was to be initiated against

her. That thereafter on 25.11.2019, the respondent herein filed OA

before the CAT, Bengaluru challenging NTRO order dated 12.02.2019

(repatriating her to DRDO), DRDO order dated 13.11.2019 (by which

she was directed to report to CIAR, DRDO to join duty by 16.12.2019)

and seeking direction to accept her VRS application dated 19.03.2019.

Before the Tribunal, all throughout, her case was that she was wrongly

repatriated prematurely and sent to DRDO as Scientist ‘G’. It was the

specific case on behalf of the respondent – original writ petitioner that

her VRS application ought to have been considered as Scientist ‘H’ in

DRDO.

2.3 The Tribunal on consideration of the matter observed and held that

the order dated 12.02.2019, was an order of discharge simpliciter during

her probation period and as she had earlier rendered technical

resignation from DRDO and/or appointment with DRDO on tendering a

technical resignation, she continued to have lien with the DRDO and

therefore, she was rightly repatriated to DRDO. The Tribunal also

observed and held that once the respondent reported back to her parent

organization and thereafter sought promotion to the post of Scientist ‘H’

and she was found ‘not fit’ thereafter, it was not open for her to contend

5

that she should be voluntarily retired on the post of Scientist ‘H’ by

DRDO. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the

respondent herein. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was

the subject matter before the High Court by way of the present writ

petition. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set

aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal by observing that

once the respondent was appointed as Scientist ‘H’ in NTRO on direct

recruitment basis, NTRO could not have repatriated her on a lower post

that she originally held in DRDO. The High Court has also observed that

the concept of reversion in the case of direct recruitment would not arise

and therefore, her repatriation as Scientist ‘G’ to DRDO was illegal.

However, thereafter the High Court has modified the order passed by the

Tribunal and ordered that the order dated 12.02.2019, shall be read as

an order of discharge simpliciter and that she shall be entitled to all

consequential benefits including the benefit of past service that she had

rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits. The High Court

has also made it clear that the respondent would be entitled to all such

benefits as are permissible to her on the premise that she held the post

of Scientist ‘H’ and the last drawn pay in that post would be the criteria

for settling all her benefits. At this stage, it is required to be noted that

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner did

not press for the prayer to accept the VRS application.

6

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the National Technical Research

Organization (NTRO) and others have preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the

NTRO has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing

to treat the order dated 12.02.2019 as an order of discharge simpliciter.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Bhati that once the respondent

was repatriated to the original parent department, i.e., DRDO and in fact

she resumed the duty with the DRDO, the respondent ceased to be the

employee of the NTRO. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court

has committed a serious error in directing to treat the order dated

12.02.2019 as an order of discharge simpliciter and further directing that

she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of

past services that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal

benefits. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court is contrary to the relevant Office Memorandum issued

by the DOPT - FR-9(13).

3.2 It is submitted that DOPT O.M. dated 21.07.2014 (Probation &

Confirmation) stipulates that during the probation period, the Appointing

Authority may revert him/her to the post held substantively by him/her

7

immediately preceding his/her new appointment, provided he/she holds

a lien thereon or in other cases may discharge or terminate him/her from

service. It is submitted that as per para 14 of the said O.M., a

probationer reverted or discharged from service during or at the end of

the period of probation shall not be entitled to any compensation.

3.3 It is submitted that in the present case, when the respondent was

appointed as a direct recruit in NTRO, she was appointed on probation

period and that she tendered the technical resignation from DRDO,

however, her lien continued with the DRDO. It is submitted that

therefore, during the probation period, when her work was not found

satisfactory, a conscious decision was taken by the ACC to revert her

back to the parent department, i.e., DRDO where she continued to have

a lien. It is submitted that therefore, repatriating the respondent to her

original parent department – DRDO, which was during the probation

period when she was working with the NTRO, was absolutely in

consonance with the DOPT O.M. dated 21.07.2014.

3.4 It is submitted that as such, as per FR-9(13) the word ‘lien’ means

the title of a Government servant to hold on regular basis, either

immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a

post, including a tenure post, to which he/she has been appointed on

regular basis and on which he/she is not on probation. It is submitted

8

that DOPT O.M. dated 17.08.2016 (Technical Resignation & Lien)

stipulates that on technical resignation, seniority in the post held by the

Government servant on substantive basis continues to be protected. It

is submitted that therefore, on technical resignation, the seniority of the

respondent continued to be protected as Scientist-G in DRDO.

3.5 Ms. Bhati, learned ASG has taken us to the relevant paras of the

DOPT O.M. dated 17.08.2016, more particularly, paras 2.6, 3.1, 3.2(b),

3.3 and 3.4.1. It is submitted that therefore a permanent Government

servant appointed in another Central Government department/office/

State Government has to resign from his/her parent department unless

he/she reverts to that department within a period of 2 years or 3 years in

exceptional circumstances, if not confirmed in the department where

he/she has joined. It is submitted that in no circumstances, lien on a

post held substantively can be terminated even with his/her consent, if

the result will be to leave him/her without a lien upon a permanent post.

It is submitted that in the present case, the respondent being a

permanent Government servant and having a lien in the post of

Scientist-G in DRDO, cannot avail of qualifying service for pensionary

benefits as Scientist-H (on probation) under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,

as she was on temporary service while on probation against the post of

Scientist – H in NTRO.

9

3.6 It is further submitted that as per Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972, subject to provision of these Rules, qualifying service of a

Government Servant shall commence from the date he/she takes charge

of the post to which he/she is first appointed either substantively or in an

officiating or temporary capacity……provided that officiating or

temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive

appointment in the same or another services or post.

3.7 It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially erred in

directing that the respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits

including the benefit of past service that she had rendered in DRDO for

computing her terminal benefits and to treat her discharge as discharge

simpliciter from the service with NTRO.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel while

opposing the present appeal has vehemently submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the High

Court in directing to treat the communication dated 12.02.2019 as

discharge simpliciter and thereafter to consider and/or grant terminal

benefits as Scientist ‘H’ from NTRO while considering her past service

rendered in DRDO.

10

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan,

learned senior counsel that vide communication dated 12.02.2019, the

NTRO abruptly repatriated the respondent to DRDO as Scientist-G. It is

submitted that when the respondent was appointed as direct recruit as

Scientist -H with the NTRO and was on probation for a period of 2 years,

thereafter, she could not have been repatriated to DRDO and that too on

a lower post, i.e., Scientist-G.

4.2 It is submitted that after 12.02.2019, right from very beginning the

respondent insisted for appointment/posting even with DRDO as

Scientist – H, which will be evident from various communications. It is

submitted that when the respondent was repatriated to a lower post

namely Scientist-G at CAIR, DRDO and when no decision was taken to

appoint her on the post of Scientist-H at CAIR, DRDO, the respondent

proceeded on three months’ leave. It is submitted that thereafter all

throughout she continued to be on leave and never worked as Scientist

– G in CAIR, DRDO.

4.3 It is submitted that even giving the bio-data to DRDO for

promotion/ appointment to the post of Scientist – H shall not come in the

way of the respondent as in fact she was compelled to submit her bio

data.

11

4.4 It is submitted that even the appellant passed on some instructions

to the respondent, received on 24.04.2019, asking her to apply for leave

through Director CAIR, DRDO and the respondent applied for 3 months’

leave from 13.02.2019 to 28.06.2019. It is submitted that in fact the

respondent had clarified that she had sought Earned Leave from

13.02.2019 to 28.06.2019.

4.5 It is submitted that the respondent chose to attend the Promotion

Board as she was directed to do so and she had no choice in the matter.

She attended without preparation at an extremely short notice of one

day; as failure to do so could have invited disciplinary action. It is

submitted that until resolution of her grievance against the NTRO order

dated 12.09.2019, which she had formally conveyed to her superiors

orally and in writing, the respondent was bound to obey every

Government order issued to her.

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.

4.10 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent that even otherwise, the respondent is entitled

to pension on the last pay drawn as Scientist-H. It is submitted that

though the conditions of the NTRO appointment refers to the

respondent’s service being terminable under CCS (Temporary Service)

Rules, 1965, the said rules nowhere states that the respondent is not

entitled for pension on the basis of the last pay drawn. It is submitted

that CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 shall be applicable to those

employees who “do not hold a lien or a suspended lien on any post

under the Government of India or any State Government”.

4.11 It is submitted that as per Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,

there is no distinction between temporary and permanent employees in

the application of Pension Rules. It is submitted that as per Rule 13 of

the Pension Rules, qualifying service of a Government servant

commences from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first

appointed substantively. It is submitted that in the present case, the

respondent was first appointed substantively on 12.09.1988. She joined

DRDO in the entry grade of Scientist ‘B’ on this date and after two years,

her probation was confirmed. It is submitted that therefore, the

14

respondent’s qualifying service starts from 12.09.1988, i.e., the date on

which she took charge of the post on which she was first appointed

substantively.

4.12 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

6. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed

the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed

and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal dismissing the O.A. and has modified the order

dated 12.02.2019 issued by the NTRO and has directed that the same

be held and treated as an order of discharge simpliciter. By the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also directed that

under the order dated 12.02.2019, the services of the original writ

petitioner – respondent herein shall stand discharged and that she shall

be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of past

services that she had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal

benefits. The High Court has further clarified that the respondent herein

– original writ petitioner would be entitled to all such benefits as

15

permissible to her on the premise that she had held the post of Scientist

– H and the last pay drawn in that post would be the criteria for settling

all her benefits.

6.1 While considering the challenge to the aforesaid directions at the

instance of the NTRO, few glaring dates and events are required to be

noted, which are as under:-

(i) That the respondent herein – original writ petitioner was

serving as Scientist -G in DRDO. Applications were invited

by the NTRO for the post of Scientist – H for appointment as

direct recruit. The respondent – original writ petitioner

applied for the said post and was appointed in NTRO as

Scientist – H on the approval of the ACC dated 10.05.2018.

The original writ petitioner was served with the offer of

appointment dated 11.05.2018 stipulating the terms and

conditions, including the probation for a period of one year.

(ii) As the respondent – original writ petitioner was appointed in

another Government organization, she was required to

tender the technical resignation, which she tendered by

submitting a technical resignation from the post of Scientist –

G in DRDO, which came to be accepted on 22.06.2018 and

the DRDO relieved her to take up the new appointment in

NTRO. However, on submitting the technical resignation, the

lien of the respondent on the post of Scientist – G in DRDO

continued as per the relevant O.M.

(iii) At this stage, it is required to be noted that tendering a

technical resignation from the post he/she was working on

16

his/her appointment in another organization of the Centre /

State on probation and to continue the lien till the probation

period in the new organization is satisfactorily completed

and/or he/she is permanently appointed in the new

establishment, can be said to be in the interest of the

employee and to the benefit of the concerned employee so

that in case she is not made permanent and/or relieved

during the probation period, she may not have to lose the job

and she can go back and join the duty in the earlier

establishment. Under the circumstances, on submitting the

technical resignation from the post of Scientist -G in DRDO

on her appointment on probation as Scientist – H in NTRO,

she continued to have the lien on the post of Scientist – G in

DRDO.

(iv) That during the probation period, it appears that her work

was not found satisfactory and a conscious decision was

taken by the ACC not to continue her in NTRO and to relieve

her as Scientist – H in NTRO and to repatriate her to her

parent department – DRDO on the post of Scientist – G as

her lien on the post of Scientist – G came to be continued as

observed hereinabove. The respondent – original writ

petitioner came to be relieved from NTRO on 12.02.2019 on

the approval of the ACC received for her pre-mature

repatriation from the post of Scientist – H (probation) in

NTRO to her parent cadre – DRDO. In fact, thereafter, the

respondent reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO on 13.02.2019

itself. However, simultaneously, she requested that she may

be appointed in a suitable post in DRDO. No orders were

passed and she continued to be the employee of the DRDO

17

on and after 13.02.2019. Thereafter, she proceeded on

three months’ leave as Scientist-G in DRDO. Therefore,

once she reported for duty at CAIR, DRDO and she

proceeded on leave for three months as Scientist – G at

CAIR, DRDO on the post earlier held by her, i.e., Scientist –

G, on which her lien in DRDO continued on her submitting

the technical resignation earlier, she ceased to be the

employee of NTRO and, that too, as Scientist – H in NTRO.

(v) At this stage, it is required to be noted that even thereafter,

the respondent requested NTRO to reinstate her and to treat

her application dated 19.03.2019, as three months’ notice for

VRS. Therefore, her request for reinstatement in NTRO

itself would suggest that the respondent – original writ

petitioner was relieved from NTRO as then and then only

would the question of reinstatement arise.

(vi) That thereafter, the respondent- original writ petitioner

insisted for appointment/ posting as Scientist – H. Her case

for promotion to the post of Scientist – H came to be

considered by the Recruitment Assessment Centre. She

submitted the application to the Director, Recruitment

Assessment Centre for promotion to the post of Scientist –

H. She sent her bio-data. She reported for the performance

assessment at Hyderabad. Thereafter, she was found “not

fit” for the promotion to the post of Scientist – H in DRDO. In

the bio-data, she specifically stated that she is working as

Scientist – G. The case set up on behalf of the respondent

that she was compelled to submit the bio-data and/or

compelled to appear for assessment of appraisal for

promotion to the post of Scientist – H, cannot be accepted.

18

No such grievance was made at the time when she

appeared for interview for promotion to the post of Scientist –

H in DRDO. She applied for the leave/earned leave from

13.02.2019 to 28.06.2019 as Scientist – G and even

thereafter, she applied for forty days leave extension.

6.2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be seen

that on and from 13.02.2019, the respondent can be said to be the

employee of DRDO and in any case, she cannot be said to have been

continued in NTRO and/or on and from 13.02.2019, she cannot be

treated to be an employee of the NTRO. In that view of the matter, the

High Court has committed a very serious error in issuing the directions

as above, more particularly, of treating the communication dated

12.02.2019, as an order of discharge simpliciter. The High Court has

also committed a very serious error in ordering that under the order

dated 12.02.2019, the services of the original writ petitioner –

respondent herein shall stand discharged and she shall be entitled to all

consequential benefits including the benefit of the past services that she

had rendered in DRDO for computing her terminal benefits. We fail to

appreciate under which provision, has the High Court issued such a

direction that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including

the benefit of past services that she had rendered in DRDO for

19

computing her terminal benefits directed to be paid by NTRO. The

directions issued by the High Court are self-contradictory.

6.3 Even otherwise, the High Court has committed a serious error in

observing that the original writ petitioner – respondent herein would be

entitled to all such benefits as are permissible to her on the premise that

she held the post of Scientist – H and the last pay drawn in that post

would be the criteria for settling all her benefits. Once, she was relieved

from NTRO and she had reported for duty as Scientist – G in DRDO as

observed hereinabove, thereafter she cannot be permitted to claim that

she had continued working as Scientist – H in NTRO.

6.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the respondent was

appointed as Scientist – H in NTRO as a direct recruit, on probation and

her probation period was not completed. Before her probation period

was completed/over, she was relieved. Therefore, even as per the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972, she could not have been given the pensionary

benefits / terminal benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and

is accordingly quashed and set aside and the judgment and order

20

passed by the CAT is restored. However, to do complete justice, we

direct that if the original writ petitioner – respondent herein so wishes,

she may press the prayer to accept her VRS application, which may be

considered by the DRDO. If she presses her VRS application to

voluntary retire her, the same may be considered positively. However,

the same shall be done by the DRDO on the post of Scientist – G so that

the respondent can get all other benefits, which may be available to her

on accepting her voluntary retirement application, as otherwise also, she

continued to have a lien on the post of Scientist – G in DRDO, as has

been observed hereinabove.

With this, the present appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 17. 2023 [HIMA KOHLI]

21