Allowed¶28

Rahul Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025CWP/7359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 set aside; respondents directed to take the petitioner back in service against the post for which his lien would be deemed to exist, within two months of receipt of certified copy of the order, subject to the petitioner being relieved by respondent No.4. ¶28

Rahul Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether an employee who has successfully cleared probation, and whose resignation was accepted by the respondents with his lien kept against the post, can be declined repatriation to the parent department solely because a formal order of confirmation was never passed.

¶11

Court's answer

Once the petitioner had completed his probation, his order of confirmation was required to be passed by the Government; the respondents having failed to pass the administrative order of confirmation, they cannot thereafter hold the petitioner accountable for lapses on their part.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

By specifically accepting the petitioner's resignation while keeping his lien alive against the post, the respondents led him to believe that an order of confirmation had actually been passed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The consequences of the respondents' lapse in failing to pass the formal confirmation orders — which did not require any other overt act or omission on the part of the employee — cannot be read against the employee.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral): An employee who has successfully completed probation and whose technical resignation was accepted with his lien kept alive against the post cannot be denied repatriation to the parent department solely because a formal order of confirmation was never passed. The Government's failure to pass the confirmation order cannot be visited upon the employee; acceptance of the resignation with lien retained led the employee to believe confirmation had been granted, and the lapse — requiring no overt act by the employee — cannot be read against him. The order dated 05.01.2024 of respondent No.2 refusing recognition of the lien as contrary to Rule 8(11) and 8(50) (read with 8(84)) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 is set aside; respondents directed to take the petitioner back in service against the post on which his lien is deemed to exist within two months, subject to his relief by respondent No.4.

¶1

**215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******

¶2

CWP-7359-2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

¶3

RAHUL KUMAR ...PETITIONER

¶4

Vs.

¶5

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

¶6

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶7

Present:Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶8

Mr. R. D. Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana

¶9

¶10

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Involving an issue as to whether an employee, who has cleared his probation successfully and whose’s resignation has been accepted by the respondent(s) by keeping his lien against the said post, could be declined repatriation solely on the ground that a formal order of confirmation had not been passed, the instant writ petition has been filed. Challenge is to the order dated 05.01.2024 whereby the respondent(s) have refused to recognize the lien of the petitioner on the ground that it is not as per Rule 8(11) and 8(50) of Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner joined with the respondent(s) No.3-Election Department, Haryana as the Lower Division Clerk ( for short, ‘LDC’ ) on 19.03.2018 and his services were governed by the Election Department, Haryana, Group C, Service Rules, 1999. He further contends that one of

¶13

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.26 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶14

CWP-7359-2024

¶15

-2-

¶16

the conditions in the letter of appointment was that the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years and was also required to complete the SETC Test. The petitioner successfully cleared the SETC Test and his probation was cleared by the respondent(s) vide order dated 19.03.2020. The petitioner, in the meanwhile had also submitted an application for SSC (CHSL) which was cleared by him and he also got selected as a Junior Secretariat Assistant. Since the petitioner was offered appointment and directed by the said respondents to take charge as Junior Secretariat Assistant, hence, the petitioner submitted a technical resignation from the post of LDC on 14.09.2020 requesting to keep his lien alive with the State of Haryana, as per the Rules. The said resignation was accepted by the respondent(s) vide Order dated 24.09.2020 by keeping his lien alive. Counsel contends that the petitioner thereafter joined with the respondent No.4, however, on account of family issues and difficulties, he took a decision to re-join his parent Department and made a request to respondent No.4 vide letter dated 08.09.2021 for seeking repatriation to his parent Department. The said request was not acted upon and was hence followed by a reminder, however, as no decision was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.23628/2022. The same was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2022 with directions to the respondent(s) to decide the representation. Eventually, the respondent(s) declined the claim of the petitioner for seeking repatriation on the ground that even though he had cleared the probation, however, as he had not been confirmed by the parent Department, hence, as per Rule 8(11) read

¶17

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.26 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶18

CWP-7359-2024

¶19

-3-

¶20

with Rule 8(50) and 8(84) of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, the petitioner cannot be taken back in service.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents appended with the instant writ petition.

¶22

It is evident that the petitioner had successfully completed his two years’ probation with his parent Department, as per the communication dated 19.03.2020. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, his lien over the post of LDC had been kept alive and the same was also duly reflected in the order dated 24.09.2020. Rule 8(11) defines ‘confirmation’ as the substantive appointment of a Government employee against a regular post on completion of probation period successfully by specific order of the competent authority . ‘Lien’ has been defined under Rule 8(50) to mean the title acquired by a Government employee after confirmation against a regular post .

¶23

It is not in dispute that the petitioner having completed his probation, his order of confirmation was required to be passed by the Government. The respondent(s) having failed in passing the administrative order of confirmation, it cannot thereafter hold the petitioner accountable for lapses on their part.

¶24

Besides, the respondent(s) having specifically accepted the resignation of the petitioner by keeping the lien of the petitioner against the said post, it undoubtedly led the petitioner to believe that an order of confirmation would have actually been passed. The consequences of the

¶25

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.26 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶26

CWP-7359-2024 -4-

¶27

lapse, if any, on the part of the respondent(s), in failing to pass the formal orders, that did not require any other overt act or omission on the part of the employee, cannot be read against him.

¶28

Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The respondent(s) are directed to take the petitioner back in service against the post for which his lien would be deemed to exist. Let the needful be done within a period of two months on receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to the petitioner being relieved by respondent(s) No.4.

¶29

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶30

13.08.2025 Rahul Joshi

¶31

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶32

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.26 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

Rahul Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Kumar Mehtani Vs SBI and Others

Ajay Pal Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Muneesh Babbar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dalel Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajat Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others