Employee Obtains Lien Only In His Parent Department, Cannot Be Allowed To Move Back And Forth Between Two Services: Kerala High Court

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed thus:

“This is incontestable because, even as per the above provision, the employee obtains lien only in his parent department, to be able to return to it if his appointment in the subsequently appointed department had not been confirmed. On this having been invoked, there was no statutory lien left for the petitioner in the latter department, so as to then return to it – such being confined only in the parent department.”

The Court made the following observations in a writ petition filed by the petitioner who was originally working in the Kerala Water Authority. Based on his request, he was appointed in the Motor Vehicles Department.

While working in the Motor Vehicles Department, he wanted to go back to his parent department, that is, Kerala Water Authority. After this, based on his request, he was repatriated to his parent department under Rule 8 of Part II of the KS & SSR. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted to move back to the Motor Vehicles Department and his request was denied. He approached the High Court to permit him again to move back to the Motor Vehicles Department from his parent department.

The Court examined the provisions of Rule 8 Part II, KS & SSR that permits employees of one service to return to the same department after moving to another department. The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory lien in his parent department and based on that he can return to his parent department, when his appointment was not confirmed in the latter department. The Court held that the petitioner invoking Rule 8 chose to come back to his parent department and now cannot seek permission to move back to the latter department as his statutory lien was limited to the parent department.

“the petitioner’s parent department is ‘KWA’ and that he had chosen to initially move to the ‘MVD’, then to come back to the former Department, invoking his statutory lien, permissible under Rule 8 of Part II KS & SSR. Once this was done, there was no question of the petitioner then opting to go back to ‘MVD’, as if he had a further lien there; and hence Ext.P7 cannot be found to be in error.”

Based on the above findings, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case name: Sandesh S V The Kerala Water Authority

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 453

Case number: WP(C) No. 27126 Of 2022

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates J. Julian Xavier, Firoz K.Robin, Anjana Ram and

Nirmal Kurien Eapen

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader K G Sarojini