Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SATYA NARAIN PAREEK versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Decided
29 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 1054 · 1996 INSC 465

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 1054, margin F

Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department. He was transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. In the impugned order he was repatriated to the Technical Education Department. Calling that action in question, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990 dismissed the same. On appeal, in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated May 13,1994. Thus this appeal hy special leave.

pp. 1054–1055, margin G

The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the lemned senior counsel for the appellant is that in vie\V or the letter a<ldrcssc<l by the Technical Education Department -~hat his lien was suspended and he could not be taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien in the parent deparln1cnt. Therefore, he must be <leeme<l to have pcrm<:tnently absorhed in Transport Departtnent. We find no force in the contention.

p. 1055, margin A

In the counter-affidavit liled by the State, it is stated that "Since the petitioner was, admittedly, temporarily transferred to a tenure post, his lien in parent department cannot be suspended under 1951 Rules. The claim of the petitioner that his lien exist in Transport department is without any basis and wholly misconceived". Jn view of the above specific stand taken by the State and it is also consistent with the rules that since the appellant being a permanent employee in Technical Education Department, during his deputation in the Transport Department his lien shall always remain in the parent department. On his repatriation, he goes back to his parent department, namely, Technical Education Department and he is entitled to his claims in his own right in that department.

p. 1055, margin B

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1055, margin D