Lien (government service)

A lien is the title of a government servant, under Fundamental Rule 9(13), to hold on a regular basis a post to which the servant has been appointed on a regular basis and on which the servant is not on probation, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence. It is the title that keeps a parent post attached to a central government employee through a deputation, an officiating spell in a higher post, a long absence on leave, or a period under suspension. The Department of Personnel and Training glosses it in paragraph 3.1.1 of its consolidated Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 as 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.

Six rules do the whole job. Fundamental Rule 9(13) defines the lien and attaches a proviso on reversion of the junior-most person in a grade. Fundamental Rule 12-A extinguishes an older lien when a new one is acquired. Fundamental Rule 13 lists the five situations in which a lien is retained and, in its proviso, the two in which it is not. Fundamental Rule 14-A carries the safeguard against being left with no lien at all, and the single clause that terminates one. Fundamental Rule 14-B allows a lien to be moved within a cadre, subject to Fundamental Rule 15, which bars a transfer to a lower-paid post. Everything else on the subject is administrative instruction sitting on top of those six.

Most of what is written about liens describes rules that no longer exist. The Fundamental Rules on lien were recast with effect from 9 February 1998, and the recast deleted Fundamental Rule 12 and Fundamental Rule 14 outright, replaced “substantively” with “on a regular basis” throughout, replaced “a permanent post” with “a post, including a tenure post”, and removed the machinery for suspending a lien. Compilations that speak of a lien as the title of a permanent servant to hold a post substantively, or that describe a competent authority suspending a lien and the lien reviving later, are reproducing the pre-1998 text. The difference is visible in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. S.K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences of 4 September 1996, which quotes the older wording in full.

Definition in Fundamental Rule 9(13)

Fundamental Rule 9(13) reads that 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 has been appointed on regular basis and on which he is not on probation”. Four elements carry weight, and each of them is a change from the older definition.

The title is to hold the post “on regular basis”, not substantively. The object is “a post, including a tenure post”, not a permanent post. A tenure post is separately defined in Fundamental Rule 9(30-A) as a permanent post which an individual government servant may not hold for more than a limited period. And the closing words exclude a post on which the servant is on probation, which is the limb that decides the position of every probationer in the service.

The rule then carries a proviso in its own text: “the title to hold a regular post shall be subject to the condition that the juniormost person in the grade will be liable to be reverted to the lower grade if the number of persons so entitled is more than the posts available in that grade”. The proviso is part of the definition, not an administrative gloss added later, and it is written in terms of the grade rather than the cadre.

Acquisition of a lien, and the position of a probationer

A lien is acquired by appointment to the post on a regular basis, and not before the servant ceases to be on probation in it. No rule in the Fundamental Rules states the acquisition condition in a separate provision; it is contained in the definition itself, in the words “appointed on regular basis and on which he is not on probation”.

Paragraph 3.1.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 states the same condition as three populations. The benefit of holding a lien is enjoyed by employees who are confirmed in the post, service or cadre of entry; by employees who have been promoted to a higher post and declared as having completed the probation where probation is prescribed; and by employees promoted on a regular basis to a higher post where the recruitment rules prescribe no probation. That third limb matters more than its length suggests, because it covers every promotion within a group of posts, for which the Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation dated 11 March 2019 prescribes no probation at all.

The consequence for a probationer is direct. A probationer appointed against a substantive vacancy holds no lien anywhere, which is why the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 reach that person and why discharge, rather than reversion, is the exit. A person on probation on promotion is in the opposite position: the old lien on the lower post survives the promotion, so the exit is reversion to the post on which the lien is held.

The 24 November 2022 Office Memorandum attributes paragraph 3.1.1 and the junior-most proviso to “DOPT’s O.M. No. 18011/1/86-Estt (D) dated 28.03.1998”. The instrument is the Office Memorandum of 28 March 1988 that delinked confirmation from the availability of a permanent post with effect from 1 April 1988 and redefined the lien in consequence; the file number itself is a 1986 file, and note (B)(ii) following the paragraph 10 table of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 traces the no-probation limb to the same 1988 decision. The “1998” in the consolidated Office Memorandum is a misprint for 1988.

The one-lien rule in Fundamental Rule 12-A

Fundamental Rule 12-A reads in full: “Unless in any case it is otherwise provided in these rules a government servant on acquiring a lien on a post will cease to hold the lien previously acquired on any other post.” The rule is purely negative. It extinguishes the older lien, and it says nothing about how the new one comes into existence, which is settled by the definition in Fundamental Rule 9(13).

The practical effect is that a lien is not a portfolio. An officer cannot bank a lien on an entry-grade post while acquiring another on promotion into a different cadre, and cannot hold one under the central government and another under a state government at the same time. The last sentence of paragraph 3.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 restates the rule for establishment sections in the same words.

Fundamental Rule 12, which in the pre-1998 scheme provided that a servant on substantive appointment to a permanent post acquired a lien on it, now stands deleted. The deletion is why the acquisition test has to be read out of the definition rather than out of a rule of its own.

The junior-most proviso and liability to reversion

The title to hold a regular post is conditional. Under the proviso to Fundamental Rule 9(13), where the number of persons entitled to hold a post in a grade exceeds the posts available in that grade, the junior-most person in the grade is liable to be reverted to the lower grade. The proviso exists because the 1988 delinking of confirmation from the availability of a permanent post allowed more persons to hold a lien in a grade than there were sanctioned posts in it.

The proviso operates on the grade, and its trigger is arithmetic rather than conduct. It is not a penalty under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, so it attracts none of the procedure that a reduction in rank imposed as a penalty would attract, and the pay that follows is fixed on the administrative footing described in pay fixation on reversion rather than by a disciplinary authority’s order. Paragraph 3.1.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 reproduces it as a condition on the right described in paragraph 3.1.1.

Retention of a lien under Fundamental Rule 13

Fundamental Rule 13 is the operative rule for almost every employee who ever asks about a lien, because it is what makes an absence from the post safe. A government servant who has acquired a lien on a post retains it in five situations:

• while performing the duties of that post;
• while on foreign service, or holding a temporary post, or officiating in another post;
• during joining time on transfer to another post, unless the servant is transferred along with the title to a post on lower pay, in which case the lien is transferred to the new post from the date of relief from duties in the earlier post;
• while on leave; and
• while under suspension.

Clause (b) is the limb that carries deputation and an officiating promotion, and clause (d) carries every kind of long leave, including extraordinary leave and half pay leave. Clause (e) is worth reading twice: a servant under suspension retains the lien throughout, which is why suspension is not a break in service and why the substantive post remains blocked while the disciplinary case runs.

Clause (c) is the one exception written into the retention rule itself. Where the transfer is to a post on lower pay and the servant carries the title across, the lien does not stay behind; it moves to the new post from the date of relief. Paragraph 3.2(c) of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 paraphrases the same clause as a transfer “substantively” to a post on lower pay.

The proviso to Fundamental Rule 13: absorption and over-long deputation

Two situations withdraw retention rather than terminate the lien, and both sit in the proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 rather than in the termination rule. No lien is retained where a government servant has proceeded on immediate absorption basis to a post or service outside the service, cadre or post in the Government, from the date of absorption. And no lien is retained on foreign service or deputation beyond the maximum limit admissible under the orders of the Government issued from time to time.

The second limb is open-ended by design, because the limit is fixed by the deputation instructions rather than by the Fundamental Rules. For an ordinary deputation the ceiling is the tenure prescribed in the recruitment rules of the ex-cadre post, or 5 years where none is prescribed, under paragraph 8.1 of the Department of Personnel and Training consolidated Office Memorandum dated 28 March 2024, extendable to the sixth and seventh year under paragraph 8.2 and never beyond. An officer who stays on past that point is outside the proviso’s protection.

Paragraph 3.4.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 groups both limbs under the heading “Termination of Lien” and attributes them to Notification No. 28020/1/96-Estt(C) dated 9 February 1998. The grouping is a drafting convenience. In the Fundamental Rules themselves the two are a proviso to the retention rule, and the distinction matters, as the next section but one sets out.

Retention on appointment to another department or a state government

A permanent government servant appointed in another central government department or office, or under a state government, must resign the parent post unless reverting to it within 2 years. Paragraph 3.3(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022, sourcing Office Memorandum No. 8/4/70-Estt(C) dated 6 March 1974, requires an undertaking to abide by that condition to be taken at the time the application is forwarded.

The 3 year figure is not a general discretion. Paragraph 3.3(ii) confines the exceptional case to a servant who has not been confirmed in the department or office joined within the 2 year period, and permits retention of the lien in the parent department for one more year against a fresh undertaking in the same terms. Paragraph 3.3(iii) requires timely action on extension, reversion or resignation at the end of the prescribed 2 or 3 years, and provides that where employees do not respond, action may be initiated for violating the undertaking and for termination of the lien, after adequate opportunity to the officer.

A temporary government servant gets none of this. Paragraph 3.3(iv) requires temporary government servants to sever connections with the Government on selection for outside posts, and states that no lien will be retained in such cases. The rule tracks the definition: a temporary servant appointed on a regular basis to a regular temporary post can hold a lien, but a temporary servant leaving for an outside post cannot keep one.

Termination of a lien under Fundamental Rule 14-A

Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) reads: “Except as provided in Rule 13 and Clause (d) of this Rule, a Government servant’s lien on a post may in no circumstances be terminated, if the result will be to leave him without a lien upon a regular post.” Clauses (b) and (c) stand deleted. The safeguard is therefore strong but not absolute, and its two carve-outs are the proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 and clause (d) of the same rule.

Clause (d) is the only affirmative termination limb left: “A Government servant’s lien on a post shall stand terminated on his acquiring a lien on another post (whether under the Central Government or State Government) outside the cadre on which he is borne.” Termination is automatic on acquisition of the outside lien. No order is required and no consent is asked.

Paragraph 3.4.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 states the safeguard in the older words, “in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent”, and in terms of a permanent post rather than a regular post. It then adds the operative instruction that has no counterpart in the rule: it is not correct to deny a government servant a lien on a post held substantively on the plea that the servant did not request retention of the lien while submitting a technical resignation, or to relieve such a servant on a condition that no lien will be retained. Unless the lien is transferred, a servant holding a permanent post substantively retains the lien on it.

Non-retention distinguished from termination

Non-retention under the proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 and termination under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) are different operations, and the difference decides whether the safeguard in Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) applies at all. Termination under clause (d) presupposes that the servant has acquired a lien on another post, so the servant is never left without one. Non-retention under the proviso can leave the servant with no lien anywhere, which is exactly why the opening words of Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) carve Rule 13 out of the safeguard.

The practical case is an officer who accepts immediate absorption in a public sector undertaking. From the date of absorption the lien is not retained, and the safeguard cannot be invoked to preserve it, because Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) excepts Rule 13 in terms. The same reasoning covers a deputation allowed to run past the seventh year.

The reverse case is the officer whose department proposes to terminate a lien on the footing that the officer did not ask to keep it. There, no outside lien has been acquired and the proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 is not engaged, so Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) applies in full and the proposal fails.

Transfer of a lien under Fundamental Rule 14-B

Fundamental Rule 14-B reads: “Subject to the provisions of Rule 15, the President may transfer to another post in the same cadre, the lien of a Government servant who is not performing the duties of the post to which the lien relates.” Three conditions are built into the sentence. The destination must be another post in the same cadre. The servant must not be performing the duties of the post to which the lien relates. And the power is the President’s, exercisable by officers to whom it has been delegated under Fundamental Rule 6, which does not list Rule 14-B among the powers reserved from delegation.

The rule is the answer to a common drafting error. A lien is transferred under Fundamental Rule 14-B, subject to Fundamental Rule 15, and not under Fundamental Rule 15 alone. Paragraph 3.5 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 states the same proposition without naming Fundamental Rule 14-B, which is how the error propagates.

Because the destination must lie in the same cadre, Fundamental Rule 14-B does not reach a movement into a different cadre. That movement is governed by Fundamental Rule 14-A(d), which terminates the old lien on acquisition of the new one rather than moving anything.

Fundamental Rule 15 and the bar on a lower-paid post

Fundamental Rule 15(a) empowers the President to transfer a government servant from one post to another, subject to a bar. Except on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or on the servant’s written request, a government servant shall not be transferred to, or, except in a case covered by Fundamental Rule 49, appointed to officiate in, a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which the servant holds a lien. Clause (b) stands deleted.

Two features are commonly misstated. The rule says “misbehaviour”, not misconduct, and the two are not the same word in service law. And the bar has a third exception besides inefficiency and written request: Fundamental Rule 49, which deals with appointment to officiate in more than one post, is expressly carved out for officiating appointments.

The bar is measured against the pay of the post on which the servant holds a lien, which is what ties Fundamental Rule 15 back to the lien rules. Where the servant holds no lien, the yardstick disappears, and the protection that pay protection instructions and Fundamental Rule 22-B supply operates instead.

The restructuring of 9 February 1998

Notification No. 28020/1/96-Estt(C) dated 9 February 1998 is the instrument the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 cites for the termination, non-retention and transfer provisions. Comparing the pre-1998 text quoted in the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgment in Dr. S.K. Kacker with the current compilation shows the scale of the recast.

The pre-1998 Fundamental Rule 9(13), as quoted by the Court, defined a lien as “the title of a Government servant to hold substantively, either immediately or on the termination of a period or periods of absence, a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively”. The current rule replaces “substantively” with “on regular basis” in both places, replaces “a permanent post” with “a post”, and adds the exclusion of a post held on probation. A lien on a regular temporary post is possible now and was not before.

The pre-1998 Fundamental Rule 14-A(a), also quoted in the judgment, read: “Except as provided in clauses (c) and (d) of this rule and Rule 97, 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 or a suspended lien upon a permanent post.” The current text drops the reference to Rule 97, drops the words “even with his consent”, substitutes the proviso to Rule 13 for the deleted clause (c), replaces “a permanent post” with “a regular post”, and, decisively, drops “or a suspended lien”.

Suspension of a lien and the phrase that outlived it

No provision for suspending a lien survives in the Fundamental Rules. Fundamental Rule 12 and Fundamental Rule 14 both stand deleted in the Department of Personnel and Training compilation, no rule confers a power to suspend a lien on any authority, and Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) no longer contemplates a servant left with “a suspended lien” as an alternative to a lien. A long deputation or an absorption now produces non-retention or termination, not a suspended lien that revives on reversion.

The phrase nonetheless survives in four consequential rules that were never cleaned up. Fundamental Rule 22-B, on pay on appointment as a probationer or on reversion, Fundamental Rule 26, on conditions governing an increment in a time scale, Fundamental Rule 111, on the conditions for a transfer to foreign service, and Fundamental Rule 124, on a servant in foreign service appointed to officiate in a post in government service, each speak of the post on which a servant holds a lien “or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended”. Those references are vestigial. They describe a state of affairs that no current rule can bring about, and they are the reason older compilations and state adaptations keep the suspension machinery in circulation.

Lien and officiating under Fundamental Rule 9(19)

Officiating is defined by reference to the lien, which is why the two concepts cannot be separated. Fundamental Rule 9(19) provides that a government servant officiates in a post when performing the duties of a post on which another person holds a lien, and adds that the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, appoint a government servant to officiate in a vacant post on which no other government servant holds a lien.

The first sentence is the ordinary case: the lien-holder is away on deputation, on leave or under suspension, and someone else performs the duties. The second sentence is the enabling provision for officiating in a genuinely vacant post, and its opening words make that a discretionary decision of the Central Government rather than a right.

A servant officiating in another post retains the lien on the parent post under Fundamental Rule 13(b). So an officiating promotion creates no lien in the higher post and destroys none in the lower one, which is why the exit from a failed probation on promotion is reversion to the post on which the lien is held.

Supreme Court authority on loss of lien

Dr. S.K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, decided on 4 September 1996 by Ramaswamy and Faizan Uddin JJ, is the leading illustration of Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) in operation. The appellant, Professor and Head of the ENT Department at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, applied against an advertisement of 29 June 1990 for the post of Director, was selected, and assumed office on 11 October 1990 for a period of five years.

The Court held that the post of Director is a permanent post and a tenure post, that it does not lie in the same cadre as the post of Professor, and that on substantive appointment to it the appellant’s lien on the professorship stood terminated under clause (d) of Fundamental Rule 14-A. He could not therefore revert to the Department when the tenure expired. The Court reasoned that a permanent government servant governed by the Fundamental Rules cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time, and that resolutions of the Institute inconsistent with statutory rules have no legal efficacy, since administrative instructions supplement gaps in statutes but cannot supplant them.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526, at paragraph 16. Read together, the two decisions fix the point at which the lien is lost: the moment of acquisition of the outside lien, not the moment the outside tenure ends.

The lien on deputation, technical resignation and absorption

Three movements out of the parent post treat the lien differently, and the treatment is the cleanest way to tell them apart. On deputation, the lien is retained under Fundamental Rule 13(b) for the whole tenure, the employee’s services are placed at the disposal of the borrowing organisation, and reversion to the parent post follows at the end. The proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 withdraws retention only past the maximum admissible limit.

On a technical resignation, the parent post is genuinely relinquished, but paragraph 3.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 keeps the lien alive for 2 years, or 3 where the servant is not confirmed in the new office within 2 years. That window is the whole practical value of the construct: an employee who finds the new post unsuitable can revert, and one who does not must resign the parent post at the end of it.

On absorption, nothing is retained. From the date of absorption the proviso to Fundamental Rule 13 withdraws retention, and the employee becomes a regular employee of the absorbing organisation. Where the absorption is in another government post outside the cadre, Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) terminates the old lien on acquisition of the new one as well, so both routes reach the same result.

Limits of the lien

A lien protects the substantive position in the old post and nothing else. In the new cadre the employee is a fresh entrant from the date of joining and is junior-most there, which is the point at which expectations most often go wrong; seniority in the old grade is preserved through the lien, and no part of it travels across.

A lien is not a claim to duty in the post. Fundamental Rule 14-B applies precisely to a servant “who is not performing the duties of the post to which the lien relates”, and Fundamental Rule 9(19) allows another person to officiate in that post throughout. What the lien gives is the title, not the chair.

A lien is not a pension rule. It keeps the servant borne on the parent cadre, but whether a period counts as qualifying service is decided by the counting rules in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and, on foreign service, by the pension and leave-salary contributions, not by the existence of a lien. The two questions are commonly run together and are answered by different instruments.

Recurring errors in establishment practice

Four errors account for most lien disputes, and each of them is a misreading of a specific rule. Relieving an employee on a technical resignation subject to a condition that no lien will be retained is barred in terms by paragraph 3.4.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022, as is refusing a lien on the plea that the employee did not ask for it.

Treating the 3 year retention as a general discretion is the second. Paragraph 3.3(ii) confines the third year to non-confirmation in the new office within 2 years and requires a fresh undertaking, so an extension granted for any other reason is unsupported.

Citing Fundamental Rule 15 as the transfer-of-lien provision is the third. Fundamental Rule 15 transfers the servant; Fundamental Rule 14-B transfers the lien, subject to Fundamental Rule 15.

Applying the pre-1998 vocabulary is the fourth, and the most common. A note that a lien exists only on a permanent post, or that a lien can be suspended and later revived, is describing rules deleted with effect from 9 February 1998. Where a genuine hardship arises from the current rules, the route is Fundamental Rule 5A, under which a Ministry or Department may relax a rule by an order recording reasons in writing, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance.

Extent, delegation and relaxation of the Fundamental Rules

The Fundamental Rules came into force on 1 January 1922 under Fundamental Rule 1, and apply under Fundamental Rule 2, subject to Fundamental Rule 3, to all government servants whose pay is debitable to Civil Estimates, and to any other class of government servants the President may declare them applicable to by general or special order. Fundamental Rule 3 excludes government servants whose conditions of service are governed by Army or Marine Regulations.

The scope statement decides who the lien rules reach. A central government employee paid from Civil Estimates is covered. Staff of an autonomous body are not central government servants and hold no lien under these rules unless their own regulations adopt them, which is why an absorption in such a body ends the lien rather than transferring it. Members of the All India Services are governed by their own service rules, which have to be consulted separately.

Fundamental Rule 6 lets the Central Government delegate any power conferred by the rules, with listed exceptions that include all powers to make rules and the powers under Fundamental Rules 6, 9(6)(b), 44, 45-A, 45-B, 45-C, 83, 108-A, 119, 121 and 127(c). Neither Fundamental Rule 14-B nor Fundamental Rule 15 appears in that list, so both the transfer of a lien and the transfer of a servant are exercised in practice by delegated authorities rather than by the President.

Related Articles

• Direct recruitment
• Technical resignation
• Deputation in central government
• Absorption
• Foreign service
• Probation in central government service
• Confirmation in service
• Substantive appointment
• Officiating appointment
• Reversion
• Permanent post
• Temporary post
• Tenure post
• Fundamental Rules
• Fundamental Rule 22
• Suspension
• Joining time
• Seniority
• Promotion
• Recruitment rules
• Departmental Promotion Committee
• Ad hoc appointment
• Central Staffing Scheme
• Resignation in government service
• Qualifying service
• Pay protection
• Personal pay
• Pay fixation
• Pay fixation on promotion
• Annual increment
• Extraordinary leave
• Half pay leave
• Modified Assured Career Progression
• Superannuation
• Voluntary retirement
• Premature retirement
• Central government pension
• Old Pension Scheme
• National Pension System
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Central Secretariat Service
• All India Service pay rules of 2016
• Central government employees in India
• Basic pay
• Pay matrix
• 7th Central Pay Commission
• Last pay certificate
• Gratuity for central government employees
• Leave encashment

External references

• Compilation of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Part I (DoPT)
• DoPT: acts, rules and orders (establishment)
• DoPT: acts and rules
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
• Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare
• Supreme Court of India

References

1. Fundamental Rule 9(13), Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Part I, as compiled by the Department of Personnel and Training (definition of lien, with the proviso on reversion of the junior-most person in a grade), read with Fundamental Rules 9(19), 9(22), 9(30) and 9(30-A).
2. Fundamental Rule 12-A (the one-lien rule), Fundamental Rule 13 with its proviso (retention and the two cases of non-retention), Fundamental Rule 14-A (the safeguard in clause (a) and termination under clause (d), clauses (b) and (c) deleted), Fundamental Rule 14-B (transfer of a lien) and Fundamental Rule 15 (transfer of a government servant, and the bar on a post carrying less pay). Fundamental Rules 12 and 14 stand deleted.
3. Fundamental Rules 1, 2, 3, 5A and 6 (commencement, extent of application, exclusion, relaxation with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, and delegation with the reserved powers).
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1669266628362 dated 24 November 2022, “Technical Resignation and Lien”, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5.
5. Notification No. 28020/1/96-Estt(C) dated 9 February 1998, cited in paragraphs 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.5 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 as the source of the termination, non-retention and transfer provisions.
6. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 8/4/70-Estt(C) dated 6 March 1974, cited in paragraph 3.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 (the 2 year and 3 year retention windows and the undertaking).
7. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28 March 1988, delinking confirmation from the availability of a permanent post with effect from 1 April 1988, cited in paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 with the year misprinted as 1998.
8. Department of Personnel and Training, Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019, paragraph 10 and note (B)(ii) following its table.
9. Department of Personnel and Training, consolidated Office Memorandum on deputation dated 28 March 2024, paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 (deputation tenure and its extension to the sixth and seventh year).
10. Dr. S.K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 4 September 1996 (Ramaswamy and Faizan Uddin JJ), and Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526, paragraph 16.