Patna High Court
IndiaversusAnjali Sharma
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The technical resignation with lien was valid and the respondent is entitled to reversion to her parent post; the railway’s attempt to cancel the lien was unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner (Eastern Railway) accepted the sole respondent’s technical resignation from the post of Junior Stenographer on 31‑12‑2022 and granted her a two‑year lien, despite her not having completed the two‑year probation. The respondent later joined the High Court of Allahabad as Additional Private Secretary and applied for reversion to her parent cadre; the railway authorities failed to act and later issued a letter claiming the lien was invalid because she was still on probation. The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that, under the Office Memorandum dated 17‑08‑2016, a lien may be retained in exceptional cases even if the employee is not yet confirmed, and ordered her reinstatement. The railway appealed, arguing that lien cannot be granted to probationers and that the CAT’s decision was illegal. The Patna High Court affirmed the CAT’s view, stating that once the employer’s decision to accept a technical resignation with lien is acted upon, it cannot be retrospectively revoked, and that the railway’s later cancellation was arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the respondent’s right to reversion upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether a technical resignation accepted with a lien is valid for an employee who has not completed the two‑year probation period.
- Whether the railway authority can retrospectively cancel the lien granted under the Office Memorandum dated 17‑08‑2016.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to reversion to her parent post of Junior Stenographer (Workshop) in Eastern Railway.
- Whether the railway’s refusal to act on the reversion request and subsequent cancellation of the lien constitute an arbitrary and illegal exercise of power.
- Interpretation of OM 17‑08‑2016 paragraphs 3.3(ii) and 3.4.1 regarding lien for non‑confirmed government servants.
Subjects
- technical resignation
- lien
- reversion
- probation period
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Railway service rules
- administrative law
- arbitrariness
- natural justice
- government employee
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6036 of 2026
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway. Kolkata
700001.
2. The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata- 700001.
3. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata- 700001.
4. Chief Workshop Manager, Eastern Railway, Workshop Jamalpur Dist.-
Munger, Bihar- 811214.
5. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer in the Office of Chief Workshop
Manager, Eastern Railway, Workshop Jamalpur Dist.-Munger, Bihar-
811214.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Anjali Sharma Wife of Preet, D/o- Sri Uday Sharma, Resident of Mohalla -
Panchshil Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Badh, District- Patna- 803213.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Sr. C.G.C.
Mr. Kumar Sachin, C.G.C.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 30-06-2026
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in O.A. No. 050/00760/2024,
whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the
sole respondent has been allowed, the impugned communication
rejecting the request of the sole respondent for reversion dated
19.09.2024 has been quashed and the petitioners herein have
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
2/15
been directed to restore the sole respondent to her parent post of
Junior Stenographer (Workshop), Mechanical Department,
Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, in terms of the lien granted vide
acceptance of her resignation dated 31.12.2022, within a period
of 60 days of receipt of the certified copy of the said order dated
06.08.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the sole respondent
was appointed as Junior Stenographer (Workshop) in scale-
Level-04, in the Mechanical Department at Jamalpur, vide office
order dated 31.08.2022, whereafter she had joined her services,
however in the meantime she was selected to the post of
Additional Private Secretary (English) in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in the pay-scale of Level-08 as per 7 th
C.P.C. and an appointment letter, vide office order dated
09.12.2022, was issued to her. Thereafter, the sole respondent
had tendered her technical resignation from the post of Jr.
Stenographer on lien basis with effect from 31.12.2022. In
pursuance to the said technical resignation tendered by the sole
respondent, the petitioners had processed her file and accepted
her technical resignation vide letter dated 31.12.2022 with an
observation that the staff concerned is released with effect from
31.12.2022 (A/N), however her lien will be maintained for two
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
3/15
years. It would be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of
the said letter dated 31.12.2022, issued by the Assistant Welfare
Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, accepting the technical
resignation of the sole respondent on lien basis, herein below:-
“In view of above conditions, her name has been struck off
from the Pay Roll of this Workshop w.e.f. 31.12.2022 (A/N).
However, her lien will be maintained for two years in terms of
Para 3.3 (i) & (ii) of Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel &
Training OM No. 28020/1/2010-Estt. (C) dated 17.08.2016.”
3. The sole respondent appears to have joined her services at
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 02.01.2023,
however by an application dated 18.03.2024, she had requested
the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad for reversion to her parent cadre, i.e to the post of Jr.
Stenographer (Workshop) in Mechanical Department of
Jamalpur Workshop under Eastern Railway. The Registrar
General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had then
forwarded the application of the sole respondent for her
reversion to her parent cadre, to the Chief Workshop Manager,
Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, vide letter dated 22.03.2024,
however, the petitioners failed to respond despite reminders
having also been sent by the Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad on 15.06.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
4/15
4. At this juncture, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that it is not that the petitioners did not respond,
inasmuch as the Assistant Welfare Officer, Eastern Railway,
Jamalpur vide letter dated 19.09.2024 had written to the
Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
inter-alia stating therein that in the letter dated 31.12.2022
accepting the technical resignation of the sole respondent with
lien, it has been erroneously mentioned that the lien of the sole
respondent will be maintained at the said office for further two
years but actually the sole respondent, who was appointed on
31.08.2022 had not completed two years’ probation period at the
time of her resignation, thus in such cases no lien can be
retained, hence the letter dated 31.12.2022 is corrected and it
may be read that the resignation of sole respondent is accepted
with effect from 31.12.2022 for her further joining as Additional
Private Secretary at the office of High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, however her lien is not maintained at the said office,
therefore there is no scope for her to revert back to her parent
department.
5. The sole respondent had in the meantime filed the
aforesaid Original Application before the Ld. CAT inter alia
praying therein to direct the petitioners herein to forthwith
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
5/15
appoint her on the post of Jr. Stenographer (Workshop) in
Mechanical Department at Jamalpur Workshop, under the
Eastern Railway on the basis of reversion of the sole respondent
from the post of Additional Private Secretary at the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, since she has retained lien on the
said post, inasmuch as her technical resignation was accepted by
the petitioners vide letter dated 31.12.2022, while maintaining
her lien for two years over the said post.
6. The petitioners had filed their written statement before the
Ld. CAT, wherein it was contended that the sole respondent is
not entitled to the benefit of technical resignation in terms of
Master Circular No. 19, circulated by the Railway Board vide
Letter No. E(NG)I/2019/CN 5/1, New Delhi dated 04.06.2019,
inasmuch as technical resignation can be given to an employee
only after completion of probation period of two years. It was
also stated that on account of the sole respondent pressing hard
to get herself spared on or by 20.12.2022 for joining her post at
the office of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and
keeping in view her career progression as also considering the
paucity of time, the request of the sole respondent for
acceptance of technical resignation was accepted, however the
pre-condition of completion of probation period of two years
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
6/15
was overlooked. In this regard, paragraph no. 3.3 (IV) of RBE
No. 21/2017 dated 07.03.2017, as circulated vide letter dated
16.03.2017 was referred to which postulates that “temporary
Government servants will be required to severe connections
with the Government in case of their selection for outside posts
and no lien will be retained in such cases”.
7. The Ld. CAT by the impugned order dated 06.08.2025
has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Original Application
filed by the sole respondent by a detailed and a speaking order
by relying upon paragraph no. 3.3 (ii) of the Department of
Personnel and Training OM dated 17.08.2016, which reads as
follows:-
“3.3. Retention of lien for appointment in another central
government office/State Government
………..
(ii)The exceptional cases may be when the Government
servant is not confirmed in the department/office where he
has joined within a period of 2 years. In such cases he
may be permitted to retain the lien in the parent
department/office for one more year. While granting such
permission, a fresh undertaking similar to the one
indicated above may be taken from the employee.”
8. Thus, the Ld. CAT by the impugned order dated
06.08.2025 has held that the acceptance of technical resignation
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
7/15
of the sole respondent with lien has given rise to a legitimate
and enforceable right, which cannot be sought to be revoked
retroactively by the petitioners, hence the statutory rights of the
sole respondent cannot be extinguished unless the lien is
formally terminated by due procedure. The Ld. CAT has further
held that the petitioners’ arbitrary and contradictory approach
violates the right that has been created in favor of the applicant,
without any misrepresentation or fraud on her part and the
practice of granting technical resignation with lien to
probationers is being reflected within Indian Railways as also
several similarly placed employees have been granted such
benefits/protection and they have been allowed reversion to the
parent department of Railways, thus denying such benefit to the
sole respondent would be discriminatory and arbitrary. In this
connection, the Ld. CAT has relied on a judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Narendra Singh, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750.
9. The Ld. CAT, in the impugned order dated 06.08.2025
has also considered the much harped upon argument advanced
by the petitioners herein by relying on the maxim “illegality
should not be perpetuated” and has come to a finding that once
an action has been taken and acted upon by the employee, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
8/15
doctrine does not apply in the abstract and a government
department cannot retrospectively declare its own decision
illegal to defeat the rights it has conferred, however if they had
realized that they had taken a wrong decision by accepting the
technical resignation with lien then an alternative course of
action was always available to them in the form of informing
the sole respondent that she should return or else decide to stay
on in the new organization without this benefit of technical
resignation with lien but nothing was done by the officials of the
petitioners herein, thus they have engaged in colorable exercise
of power, illegally. In such view of the matter, the Ld. CAT by
the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 has quashed the impugned
communication dated 19.09.2024, whereby the request of the
sole respondent for reversion had been rejected and has directed
the petitioners to restore the sole respondent to her parent post
of Junior Stenographer (Workshop), Mechanical Department,
Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, in terms of the lien granted vide
letter dated 31.12.2022, within a period of 60 days of receipt of
the certified copy of the said order dated 06.08.2025.
10. We also find from the records that the petitioners had
preferred a review petition before the Ld. CAT bearing
RA/050/00017/2025, which has also stood dismissed by an
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
9/15
order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CAT, however the
same is not under challenge before this Court.
11. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted by
referring to the OM dated 17.08.2016, especially paragraph no.
2.1.1 thereof that the same postulates that “no question of
benefit of a resignation being treated as a technical resignation
arises in case of it being from a post held on adhoc basis.”
Reliance has also been made on para no. 3.1 of the said OM
dated 17.08.2016, which reads as follows:-
“3.1 Lien
3.1.1 Lien is defined in FR 9(13). It represents the right of
a Government employee to hold a regular post, whether
permanent or temporary, either immediately or on the
termination of the period of absence. The benefit of
having a lien in a post/service/cadre is enjoyed by all
employees who are confirmed in the post/service/cadre of
entry or who have been promoted to a higher post,
declared as having completed the probation where it is
prescribed. It is also available to those who have been
promoted on regular basis to a higher post where no
probation is prescribed under the rules, as the case may
be.
3.1.2 The above right will, however, be subject to the
condition that the junior-most person in the cadre will be
liable to be reverted to the lower post/service/cadre if a
any time the number of persons so entitled is more than
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
10/15
the posts available in that cadre/service.”
12. Thus, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners that unless and until an employee completes the
probation of two years and is confirmed in service, benefit of
lien cannot be granted, hence the impugned action of the
petitioners, contained in the office order dated 19.09.2024,
rejecting the request of the sole respondent for her reversion to
the Railways, is correct and does not suffer from any illegality.
13. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and we
find that the facts lie in a narrow compass, inasmuch as the sole
respondent was appointed on the post of Jr. Stenographer
(Workshop) in Mechanical Department at Jamalpur Workshop
under Eastern Railway vide appointment letter dated
09.08.2022/31.08.2022, whereupon she had submitted her
joining on 31.08.2022, however in the meantime she was
selected to the post of Additional Private Secretary (English) at
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, leading to issuance
of an appointment letter dated 09.12.2022, whereafter she had
submitted her technical resignation to the Chief Workshop
Manager, Jamalpur, opting and praying therein to create a lien
on her post at Jamalpur for two years. The appointing authority
vide letter dated 31.12.2022 had accepted the technical
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
11/15
resignation of the sole respondent and had observed therein that
the lien of the sole respondent shall be maintained for two years
in terms of para 3.3(i) and (ii) of the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training, OM No. 28020/1/2010-
Estt. (C) dated 17.08.2016. The sole respondent had then joined
her services at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on
02.01.2023.
14. The sole respondent had subsequently filed an application
dated 18.03.2024 before the Registrar General of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad for her reversion to her parent cadre
where she was having lien, leading to the Registrar General of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad having forwarded the
said application to the Chief Workshop Manager, Eastern
Railway, Jamalpur vide letter dated 22.03.2024, for taking
necessary action, whereafter a reminder dated 15.06.2024 was
also sent to the petitioners, however no action was taken by the
petitioners, resulting in the sole respondent filing the connected
Original Application. The Assistant Welfare Officer, Eastern
Railway, Jamalpur had then belatedly issued a purported
clarificatory letter dated 19.09.2024, inter-alia stating therein
that in the letter dated 31.12.2022 accepting the technical
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
12/15
resignation of the sole respondent with lien, it has been
erroneously mentioned that her lien will be maintained at the
said office for further two years but actually the sole respondent,
who was appointed on 31.08.2022 had not completed two years’
probation period at the time of her resignation, thus in such
cases no lien can be retained, hence the letter dated 31.12.2022
is corrected and it may be read that the resignation of sole
respondent is accepted w.e.f. 31.12.2022, however her lien is not
maintained at the said office, therefore there is no scope for her
to revert back to her parent department.
15. At this juncture, we would refer to para no. 3.3 (ii) and
3.4.1 of the OM dated 17.08.2016 herein below:-
“3.3 Retention of lien for appointment in another central
government office/State Government
(ii) The exceptional cases may be when the Government
servant is not confirmed in the department/office where he
has joined within a period of 2 years. In such cases he
may be permitted to retain the lien in the parent
department/office for one more year. While granting such
permission, a fresh undertaking similar to the one
indicated above may be taken from the employee.
3.4.1 A Government servant's lien on a post may in no
circumstances be terminated even with his consent if the
result will be to leave him without a lien upon a
permanent post. Unless his lien is transferred, a
Government servant holding substantively a permanent
post retains lien on that post. It will not be correct to deny
a Government servant lien to a post he was holding
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
13/15
substantively on the plea that he had not requested for
retention of lien while submitting his Technical
Resignation, or to relieve such a Government Servant with
a condition on that no lien will be retained.”
16. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision contained in the
OM dated 17.08.2016 would show that in exceptional cases
where the government servant is not confirmed in the
department/office where he has joined, such an employee can be
permitted to retain the lien in the parent department/office in
case such employee has been appointed in another Central
Government Office/State Government office. Thus, we are of
the view that in case there would have been no provision under
the various O.Ms. for acceptance of the resignation of the
probationers with lien, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners would
have been right in contending that illegality cannot be
perpetuated, however since in exceptional cases, the lien can be
permitted be retained even in cases where the concerned
government servant has not completed the probation period,
there is no question of any kind of illegality.
17. Yet another aspect of the matter is that once an action has
been taken by the employer and acted upon by the employee,
the petitioners cannot retrospectively declare their own decision
illegal to defeat the rights it has conferred, however if they had
realized that they had taken a wrong decision by accepting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
14/15
technical resignation with lien then an alternative course of
action was always available to them in the form of informing
the sole respondent to immediately return back to her parent
department or else stay in the new organization without the
benefit of lien but nothing was done by the officials of the
petitioners, thus they have engaged in colorable exercise of
power, illegally. In our view such recourse would have been a
reasonable approach by the petitioners, however the petitioners
chose to act arbitrarily by issuing the illegal impugned letter
dated 19.09.2024.
18. Thus, we find that the competent authority, vide the
aforesaid letter dt. 31.12.2022 had rightly accepted the technical
resignation of the sole respondent with lien in terms of O.M.
dated 17.08.2016, relevant portion whereof have already been
quoted hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs. As far as the
purported correction made vide letter dated 19.09.2024, issued
by the Assistant Welfare Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur is
concerned, the same is arbitrary and without the sanction of law,
inasmuch as the same has not only been issued belatedly, in
contravention of the provisions contained in the OM dated
17.08.2016 but has also been issued in a capricious manner,
only after filing of the connected Original Application by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6036 of 2026 dt.30-06-2026
15/15
sole respondent for reversion to her parent cadre, i.e to the post
of Jr. Stenographer (Workshop) in Mechanical Department of
Jamalpur Workshop under Eastern Railway, thus the same does
not instill any confidence rather the same is a mala fide action
on the part of the petitioners, as such the same has been rightly
quashed by the Ld. CAT by the impugned order dt. 06.08.2025.
19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the forgoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Raj Kumar, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.