The word Lien is usually of commercial parlance, and it usually means the right which a Debtor has over goods of the person, to whom money has been lend. However, in Service Jurisprudence it refers to the right of government employee to the post to which he/she is substantially appointed. In this Article I will endeavour to understand the concept of Lien in Service Law through illustrative Case-Law.

State Of Rajasthan v/s SN Tiwari [(2009) 4 SCC 700]:
In this case, the Respondent had been appointed as an Investigator in a Government Department of Statistics, he along with some other similarly placed employees were send to work in the health department. Respondent was appointed purely on an urgent temporary basis as a Homeopathic Doctor for six months. In response to the query received from the Department of Statistics, as to whether he wished to have his Lien continued in the department of Statistics, he answered in the affirmative, despite that the Government declined him the benefits associated with the Department of Statistics. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that his Lien was maintained to the post to which he was substantively appointed, the Department of Statistics and his temporary transfer to the Health Department, did not take away his Lien.

Let us now examine a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Supreme Court has elucidated on the concept of Lien with great clarity.

LR Patil v/s Gulbarga University [(Civil Appeal No. 3254 OF 2013]:
The Appellant was working in the capacity of an Office Assistant, he completed his period of probation and was selected as Assistant Registrar, he had to serve a period of two years as Probationer. His appointment was quashed, pending his appeals, the University repatriated him to his position as Office Assistant. He sought pay fixation and other benefits of the post of Office Superintendent, the University had not considered the same.

Supreme Court opined that since the Appellant still maintained Lien over his post of Office Superintendent as he had never been permanently absorbed into the cadre of Assistant Registrar, and hence his Lien being maintained over the post of Office Superintendent, the benefits will be accorded to him of that post itself.

Now, let us examine the case of Ramlal Khurana which deals with a different aspect of Lien.

Ramlal Khurana v/s State of Punjab [(1989 AIR 1985):
The Appellant in the present instance was working in the Police Department as a Constable. While working in the Police Department, he gave the Excise Inspector examination, and he was selected as Excise Commissioner. He was sought to be send back to his parent department from there, he filed a Civil Suit for Declaration and got a decree in his favour from the Civil Court, holding that the transfer was bad in Law.

He was compulsorily retired by the Excise Commissioner, he filed a Writ Petition challenging such compulsory order of retirement on the ground that only the Commissioner of Police was the Competent Authority to retire him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Appellant's Lien was on the post of the Excise Department and his Lien in the Police Department had expired when he was comprehensively absorbed into the service of the Excise Department, hence his Appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
Through these Case-Laws we can see how the concept of Lien in Service Law has evolved, the Courts have comprehensively held that unless and until there is permanent absorption into a particular department or cadre, Lien is not acquired.