Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IFTIKHAR ALI VS Respondent: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SADDAR SUB-DIVISION, TEHSIL SERAI ALAMGIR, DISTRICT JHELUM
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 219
[Lahore High Court]
Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
IFTIKHAR ALI
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SADDAR SUB‑DIVISION, TEHSIL SERAI ALAMGIR, DISTRICT JHELUM and 3 others
Writ Petition No.825 and Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 1565 and 1566 of 1994, decided on 17th .August, 1994.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts.212 & 199‑‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.9‑‑‑Transfer of a civil servant is part of terms and conditions of his service and no vested right of a civil servant is involved in it‑‑‑Plea of hardship and mala fides by civil servant cannot be taken note of by High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, for Art. 212 of the Constitution bars jurisdiction of other Courts to entertain and decide the disputes relating to service matters of civil servants.
Civil Petition No.26 of 1992 ref.
(b) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Village Patwari classifies to be a civil servant and under the Service Rules cannot claim an indefeasible right for a stay at a particular station of his choice for any stated period and duration.
(c) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Transfer of a civil servant is part of terms and conditions of his service and no vested right of civil servant is involved in transfer.
M. Fayyaz Ahmed Khawaja, Advocate.
ORDER
Petitioner was a village Patwari. He was posted in Patwar Circle, Mahaykhurd in Tehsil Sarai Alamgir of District Jhelum. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub‑Division, Jhelum ordered his transfer to Tehsil Office, Jhelum for further posting. He is aggrieved of it and has instituted a petition in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside of it.
It is urged that there is a ban on transfer of civil servants imposed by the Chief Minister, Government of Punjab. Annexure `A' at page 8 of the case file is referred to in this behalf. Relying on the ban, it is urged that transfer of village Patwari to Tehsil Office for his further posting was an illegal exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, impugned order was liable to be struck down as without lawful authority. Reference to a case reported as AIR 1979 SC (India) 1828 was made.
As village Patwari, petitioner classifies to be a civil servant. Undoubtedly, transfer of a civil servant is part of terms and conditions of his service. No vested right of a civil servant is involved in it. Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) falls in Chapter II relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants. It provides for posting and transfers of the civil servants. Subject to the Service Rules governing the village Patwaris, a village Patwari could claim no indefeasible right for a stay at a particular station of his choice for any stated period of duration. It is not denied that the Assistant Commissioner is competent to order for transfer of the petitioner. Petitioner was relieved of his posting from a Patwar Circle to report for Headquarters of Tehsil Jhelum for his further posting. In it, no right of the petitioner was shown to have been infringed. Matters relating to terms and conditions of service fall within the domain of an appropriate Service Tribunal set up under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It bars jurisdiction of other Courts to entertain and deckle the disputes relating to service matters. As said above, transfer of a civil servant was essentially part of terms and conditions of service. A grievance arising out of it was initially rectifiable in a departmental representation to the competent authority and m the event of failing in it, by an appeal to the appropriate Service Tribunal. I consistently took this view and followed it in matters brought before me for adjudication and the Supreme Court on transfer matters of civil servants also expressed similar view. An instance of it was readily available in the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.26 of 1992 decided on 8th of March, 1992. I must admit that some deviation from this view was also expressed by some of my learned brethren in the Court but I felt reluctant to follow the deviated view expressed in admitting orders in writ petitions directed against the transfer orders of civil servants. Language and the command of Constitution in Article 212 was self‑evident. It did not admit of a different view. Ouster of jurisdiction was apparent and there was no run away from it. The Supreme Court at the apex of judicial system also said so. Therefore, on no principle, the argument of hardship and mala fide could be taken note of in extraordinary jurisdiction. Even the imposition of ban on transfer shall not help the petitioner. He can agitate his grievance on its score in a departmental representation to the competent Authority which shall be considered on its own merit by it. In the clear view of Article 212 of the Constitution, this Court is unable to assist the petitioner. He may look for his remedy in the appropriate forums provided for him by law. It may be noted that on page 1828 of AIR 1979 SC, a judgment in criminal jurisdiction was reported. It did not deal with transfer of a civil servant.
As a result of the above, this writ petition must fail in limine and is, accordingly, dismissed as such.
M.B.A./I‑113/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ?? Petition dismissed.