Find a Lawyer

Service Appeal No.293 of 2013, decided on 13th December, 2013.

----Ss. 5 & 10---Balochistan Service Tribunal Act (V of 1974), S.4---Posting and transfer---Court should not interfere with transfer/posting orders, which were made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer orders were made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on grounds of mala fide---Government servant, holding a transferable post, had no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he was liable to be transferred from one place to another---Transfer orders issued by the Competent Authority, would not violate any of his/her legal rights---Even, if a transfer order was passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, court ordinarily should not interfere with the orders, instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department to avail the first remedy---Transfer from one place to another, was necessary in public interest and efficiency of the public administration; whenever public servant was transferred, he must comply with the orders---If there was any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it was open to civil servant to make a representation to the Competent Authority for stay, modification, or cancellation of transfer orders---If the order of the transfer was not stayed, modified and cancelled, civil servant must carry out the orders of transfer---Civil servant could lose his service, if would fail or refuse to comply with the orders of his transfer---Service Tribunal, was not appellate forum to decide transfers of civil servants on administrative grounds---Appellant, who was working at one place for about 6 years, was desirous to remain there and to continue---Department never bothered to keep an eye on the tenure period and allowed him to continue on the acting charge basis by enjoying 10 to 20% additional pay, which was harmful for the Government Exchequer---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. M.A. Chishti for Appellant. Saleem Baloch Addl. A.-G. Arbab M.Tahir for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 9th December, 2013.

The appellant seeks to quash the impugned Notification dated 17-7-2013 whereby Respondent No.2 has been transferred and posted as Secretary Market Committee Quetta on acting charge basis. The impugned notification has been challenged on the grounds that the Agriculture Department has separate wings and cadres as Balochistan Agriculture Department Extension Wing (Grade 16 and above) Service Rules, 1983 notified on 2-5-2001. The Market Committee under Balochistan Agriculture Act, 1991 read with Amendments Act, 2004 fell within the ambit extension wing of Agriculture Department. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was appointed as Secretary Market Committee on 21-5-2008, whereas the respondent was in the contractual staff of National Programme for improvement of Water Course and Water Storage Tanks, however they were regularized on 14-6-2012, however they were directed to continue on their place of postings and were treated fresh appointees and also placed on the bottom of the seniority list. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that although transfer/posting notification has been issued by the Department of Agriculture (respondent No.1) yet the notification does not speaks about the adjustment of the appellant, which tantamount immature and incomplete therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notification. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the instant appeal is time barred, hence it is not maintainable. The plea of the appellant that he was on leave is not acceptable because of the certificate issued by the Deputy Director (Competent Authority) indicates that the appellant was not on leave till 17-7-2013, therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that a number of transfer and posting notifications have been issued frequently amongst the Extension Wing and Water Management in the public interest. The learned counsel submitted that although the respondent No.2 belongs to contractual staff, but afterwards on 14-6-2012, he was notified as permanent officer of BPS-17 and the appellant never challenged it and even by issuance of impugned notification, no such service right of the appellant would be affected. He further stated that the appellant has failed to avail the remedy by not filing a departmental appeal therefore the instant appeal does not come in the ambit of section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974, hence deserves to be dismissed and the stay order granted earlier on 5-9-2013 may also be recalled. 3. The Additional A.-G., the counsel for the state submitted that on the directive of the competent authority, a summary was moved and after getting approval thereof transfer / posting notification issued on 17-3-2013. He admitted that due to oversight by the respondent No.1 (Secretary Agriculture) the posting of the appellant has not been taken place, therefore, the counsel for appellant and perused the pleading, the grounds taken by the appellant in his appeal, challenging impugned notification is not sustainable. The appellant has not been transferred prematurely. The transfer of the appellant by the Secretary (respondent No.1) has been issued with the approval of the competent authority. The impugned notification has not violated any fundamental right or service condition of the appellant. The transfer order does not suffer for want of jurisdiction or mala fide. The court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer/posting matters. 4. In our opinion the court should not interfere with transfer/ posting orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on the grounds of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to other. The transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of the legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the court ordinarily should not interfere with the orders instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department i.e. to avail the first remedy. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government there will be complete chaos in the administration which not be conductive to public interest. It is pointed that transfer of a government servant appointed to particular cadre of transferable posts to other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency of the public administration, whenever a public servant is transferred he must comply with the orders but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make a representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation transfer orders. If the order of the transfer is not stayed, modified and cancelled, the concerned government servant must carry out the orders of the transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer orders merely on the ground of made a representation or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer orders, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules. The appellant can lost his service if fails or refuse to comply with the orders of his transfer. Actually Tribunals are not appellate forum to decide transfers of government officers on administrative grounds. The wheel of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Tribunals not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stands unless they are vitiated either by mala fide or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. When, as in case the transfer order is issued on administrative gourds the court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place. So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that he may be allowed to continue as Secretary Market Committee is concerned such policy does not vest any enforceable right upon the government servant. However, it is notable that guide lines issued by the government the said guidelines does not confine upon the government employees legally enforceable right. 5. For what has been said above, it has also been concluded that the appellant was working as Secretary Market Committee, Quetta for the five (5) years and eight (8) months, despite of that still he is desirous to remain there and to continue. But unfortunately the department never bothered to keep an eye on the tenure period and allowed him to continue as Secretary Market Committee on the acting charge basis by enjoying 10 to 20% additional pay for the last sixty eight (68) months which is harmful for the government exchequer. It has also been found that the post of Secretary Market Committee carried BPS-18, whereas a junior officer of BPS-17 has been posted on acting basis which is also against the norms of government policy. 6. For what has been said above, no case for acceptance is made out. The said appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 5-9-2013 regarding suspension of impugned notification dated 17-7-2013 is recalled. With no order as to costs. HBT/4/BST Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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