Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOBIN IQBAL VS Respondent: DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN POST OFFICE, ISLAMABAD
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C. S.) 837
(Lahore High Court]
Before Mumtaz Ali Mirza, J
Syed MOBIN IQBAL
versus
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN POST OFFICE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 425 of 1998, decided on 5th March, 1998.
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212---Jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to terms and conditions of civil service---Bar of---Effect---Civil servant's transfer order challenged by him through Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Matter of transfer of civil servant related to terms and conditions of his service---Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain any dispute with respect to such matter was expressly barred by Art. 212 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition, entertained. therefore, could not be entertained.
Miss Rukhsana Ijaz v. Secretary, Education Punjab and others 1997 SCMR 167 = 1997 PLC (C. S.) 121; Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab and others 1997 SCMR 169 = 1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 and Rafique Ahmad Chaudhary v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others 1997 SCML'170`, 1997 PLC (C.S.) 124 rel.
Sardar Hayat Khan Mughal for Petitioner.
ORDER
Through the instant Constitution petition learned counsel seeks to question an order of transfer passed by the respondents in respect of the petitioner whereby he has been transferred from G.P.O., Rawalpindi to Directorate-General, Pakistan, Post Office, Islamabad.
2. The petitioner is a civil servant. The dispute raised by him as to his transfer from Rawalpindi to Islamabad is a dispute which relates to the terms and conditions of his service as a civil servant. This being so, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain any dispute with respect to such a matter is expressly barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The instant petition cannot be, therefore, entertained. Reliance, for the view that I take, is placed on 1997 SCMR 167 = 1997 PLC (C.S.) 121; (Miss Rukhsana Ijaz v Secretary, Education Punjab and others), 1997 = 1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 (Ayyaz Anjunm v. Government of Punjab and others and 1997 SCMR 170 = 1997 PLC (C.S.) 124 (Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others).
3. For all the aforesaid reasons, the instant Constitution petition is misconceived and is dismissed as such in limine. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to agitate his grievance before an appropriate Service Tribunal.
A. A. /M-635/L Petition dismissed.