Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNIR AHMAD VS Respondent: DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB LAHORE
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 1202
[Lahore High Court]
Before Munir A. Shaikh, J
Ch. MUNIR AHMAD
versus
DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE
Writ Petition No. 7894 of 1993, decided on 20th September, 1993.
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212(2)‑Transfer‑‑ Callenge to‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employee in his Constitutional petition had raised question of legality of order through which he was transferred from one wing of department to another wing located in same building‑‑‑Representation made by employee having been disposed of by departmental Authority, employee had a right of appeal before Service Tribunal and Constitutional petition filed by employee without first availing remedy of appeal, was not maintainable in view of bar provided in Art. 212(2) of the Constitution.
Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner.
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, A: G. for Respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has raised the question of legality of order dated 26‑6‑1993 through which he was transferred from one Wing of the Department to another Wing located in the same building on the ground that the post against which he has been posted after transfer, he has no experience. It is also alleged that the order of transfer is violative of the rules which provide that no civil servant nearing the date of his retirement should be transferred and if transferred he should be given option to choose not only the station but the post as well.
2. The petitioner is retiring on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 18‑10‑1993.
3. Learned Advocate‑General has raised an objection that the jurisdiction. of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution as the grievance of the petitioner relates to the terms and conditions of his service and he should file appeal before the Service Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has submitted departmental representation which has not yet been disposed of by the departmental authorities and the petitioner can file appeal only if the said representation is disposed of within 90 days and if not then after the expiry of the said period of 90 days within further period of 30 days and by that time he would stand retired as such it is a case in which no appeal shall be deemed to be competent or that the petitioner cannot be held to be having a right of appeal before the Service Tribunal.
5. Learned Advocate‑General has placed no record order dated 16‑8‑1993 passed by the departmental authority regarding disposal of the representation made by the petitioner a copy of which has been delivered to the petitioner and says that at present the appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable.
6. The objection raised by learned Advocate‑General is correct. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution in these matters has been expressly excluded and merely because the right to file appeal is dependent upon the completion of preliminary formalities i.e. making representation etc. would not confer the jurisdiction of the Court as ultimately the right of appeal is available against the impugned order after completion of such formalities. Since the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of therefore, the petitioner has at present a right. of appeal before the Service Tribunal Writ petition is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./M‑1592/L Petition dismissed.