Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 169 of 1974, decided on 25th April 1975.

-- S. 25-A-Transfer-Railway workman challenging transfer order on basis of departmental instructions-Instructions merely of recom mendatory and advisory nature, held, create not right guaranteed by law-Petition, held, not maintainable-Petitioner advised to approach departmental authorities.

Aqa Asif Jaffery for Appellant.

Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Respondent.

Abdul Hamid Shakir has filed an appeal against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court dated 16th April 1974 by which his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter men tioned as the Ordinance, was dismissed. He had moved that Court to get the order regarding his transfer from Lodhran to Nawab Shah revised to let him remain posted at Ladhran, maintaining that the order of transfer in question were arbitrary and militated against the convenience of a Railway workman. The learned lower Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant failed to show any infringement of any right accrued or guaranteed to him under law in the orders of transfer passed about him.

In the present appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has referred me to the certified copies of the departmental letters containing the relevant directive from the competent authority (Annexures A & E) and also to an order dated 15th December 1973 of Chief Engineer Signals, Railways, passed on application of the appellant. The first mentioned loiter from the General Manager (Personnel) to the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Western Railway Lahore, dated 13th December 1957 (Annexure A) issued a directive that transfer of an employee to another Division of Extra Divisional Office; without obtaining his willingness, to make room for another employee was wrong in principle and should not ordinarily be ordered. In the second letter from the Vice Chairman, Personnel to the Divisional Office, Multan dated 10th November 1971 (Annexure B) it was directed to the effect that the transfer of staff wish less than two years or between at one station except on promotion be avoided. On the application (Annexure C) it was recom mended by the (Chief Personnel Officer) that with seven months stay of the appellant at Lodhran, he may be allowed to stay on. None of the afore mentioned directions or the recommendations carried the force of any service rule or regulations and as such could scarcely be made a basis for a guarantee or secured right. The departmental directions which are more or less of advisory nature are issued in the form of recommendations but they do not create vested rights to be invoked by the workmen in order to get departmental action set aside taken in due course by the proper departmental authorities.

In such situation the best course for the workman is to approach the compe tent departmental authorities to look into his grievance and to pass just and) equitable order.

In the present case a high ranking Officer of the department (Chief Personnel Officer) has very clearly recomended for stopping the transfer of the appellant which could hardly be ignored by the officers concerned in the interest of justice and fair administration. The appellant would be best advised to contact the authorities of his Department to obtain suitable order by virtue of the aforesaid recomendation to have his grievance redressed equitably. With these observations the appeal is dismissed as having no force.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.