Lien remains with the division accepting an own-request transfer, not the employee’s later place of posting.

The applicant, a railway employee originally serving in Nanded Division of South Central Railway, sought an own-request inter-railway transfer to Danapur Division, East Central Railway (ECR).

Danapur Division consented, and he was transferred in 2008; he reported at ECR Headquarters, Hajipur, where he was posted temporarily.

Although he continued working at Hajipur and received a financial upgradation under the MACP scheme while posted there, his lien was not initially fixed there or in Danapur.

After an order in 2017 proposed his repatriation to Samastipur Division, a later order cancelled that direction but recorded that his lien would remain in Samastipur.

He challenged that entry and sought fixation of his lien at Hajipur, or alternatively Danapur.

During the proceedings, the competent authority fixed his lien at Danapur Division with effect from 29 July 2008, the date he reported following his transfer.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his lien fixed at ECR Headquarters, Hajipur, because he had worked there for several years and received MACP benefits while posted there.

Whether the applicant’s lien was properly fixed at Danapur Division pursuant to his own-request transfer there.

The Tribunal described lien as an employee’s right or title to hold a regular post and observed that lien ordinarily attaches to the substantive post or service/cadre, rather than arising merely from the place where an employee performs duties.

It noted that lien may continue while an employee performs duties in another post or holds a temporary or officiating post, subject to the applicable service rules.

The Tribunal cited no specific statute, service rule, or precedent.

It also found no rule or provision establishing that long service at a particular location or receipt of MACP financial benefits creates a right to have lien fixed at that location.

The applicant had requested transfer to Danapur, that division had consented to absorb him, and he was transferred and relieved to Danapur with his service records.

The Tribunal therefore considered Danapur the proper division for fixation of his lien.

His continued posting at Hajipur was not sufficient to establish a right to have his lien fixed there, and his MACP benefit did not alter that conclusion because no supporting rule was produced.

Since the competent authority had already fixed his lien at Danapur during the proceedings, the challenge to the earlier order’s lien entry had become infructuous.

The application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.