Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 186 of 1980, decided on 20th May, 1980.
‑‑ S. 4, proviso (a)‑Appeal against transfer order passed by Director, Public Instruction‑Representation not made to Govern ment‑Appeal, in circumstances, held, premature.
.‑In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved by the orders of the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, dated 7th April, 1980, transferring him from the post of Registrar, F C College, Lahore, as Student Welfare Officer under the Directorate of Education, Multan, in NPS‑16. It was represented before us that the appellant was holding a post in NPS‑17 whereas he was transferred against a post in NPS‑16 which was tantamount to reduction in rank and thus the order was wholly without jurisdiction. We accordingly stayed the order of transfer on 20th April, 1980.
2. The department, however, represented before us that in the first instance the appellant has all through been working against a post of NPS‑16 and thus no reduction in rank was involved. Secondly, the department objected that the appellant, in any case, was required to file representation against the transfer order to the next higher authority, i.e., the Government of Punjab failing which this Tribunal is precluded to entertain the appeal. Under the proviso (a) to Rule 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 the appellant was first required to make a departmental representation and it is only after decision on that repre sentation or the expiry of 90 days after filing the representation that an appeal could be before this Tribunal. The appellant endeavoured to show that he filed a representation but he could not produce any satisfactory evidence of the same and we are constrained to hold that the appellant never represented against the order of his transfer. The appeal is, therefore, premature. Even otherwise the appellant has been able to satisfy us that he was holding a post in NPS‑17 although he claimed to be appointed as Lecturer which is Grade 17 post but his pay was originally fixed in NPS‑16 in 1978 and he was also informed on 13th March, 1980 that his request for appointment as Lecturer could not be accepted. Thus at no stage the appellant held a post in NPS‑17.
Consequently the appeal has no force and is accordingly rejected and the stay order stands vacated,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer