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.
Miscellaneous Petition No. 32 and Appeal No. 121(R) of 1982, decided on 4th September, 1982
‑‑S. 4 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Interim status quo‑Appeal maintainable against a final decision of departmental authority‑Tribunal can suspend impu gned decision till final decision on appeal‑Apprehended action- Cannot be restrained‑Apprehended transfer=Cannot be prevented by Service Tribunal.
S. 3f. K. Lodhi for Appellant.
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Respondent.
Date of hearing. 12th August, 1982.
.‑The petitioner, presently holding the post of Deputy Chief Controller Stock/Stock Controller. Lahore, filed an appeal before this Tribunal praying for an appropriate direc tion to the respondent‑Department to immediately implement the judg ment and decree dated 14‑6‑1979 passed by the Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore, and to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Section Controller and also to grant the consequential benefits including the promo tion in NPS‑16. The appeal was taken up by this Tribunal for preliminary hearing on 27‑7‑1982 and was admitted to regular hearing. Along with the appeal a miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. was also made for interim order of status quo with regard to the present posting of the petitioner/appellant till the final decision of the appeal. This Tribunal ordered notice to the respondents on the said miscellaneous application, which was taken up for hearing by us on 12‑8‑1982.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It was the contention of the petitioner that he had reliably learnt that in retalia tion of his demands for his seniority and promotion as granted in the judgment of the Civil Court, the respondents are likely to dislodge or revert him from his present post whereby he would suffer an irreparable loss and would be further dragged ‑to litigation.
3. The request of the petitioner for an interim order of status quo with regard to his present posting is misconceived and untenable on the face of it. An appeal against only a final decision of a departmental autho rity lies to this Tribunal and if such an appeal is filed, the Tribunal, in our view, would be competent to suspend the operation of the impugned decision till the final decision of the appeal. In the case in hand no decision has yet been taken by the concerned departmental authority but it is only an apprehension of the petitioner/appellant that he would likely be either shifted from his present posting or be reverted to a lower grade. The question of considering or adjudicating by this Tribunal upon a matter which exists only in the mind of the petitioner/appellant, therefore, does not arise at all and no direction can be issued by this Tribunal restraining the respondent‑Department from an action only apprehended by the appellant/petitioner nor this Tribunal can prevent the respondent‑Depart ment from transferring him from one post to another. We have, therefore, no option but to reject this miscellaneous application.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer