Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 276 of 1985, decided on 4th June, 1985
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑---
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Appeal‑‑Posting and transfer of employees‑‑Posting orders of employees issued by respondents in various Districts, held, were valid orders and no exception could be taken against such orders.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellants.
Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent.
In case of Messrs Bunyad Ali, Mukhtar Ahmad, Qanungos, and Muhammad Yaqub, Amin‑ur‑Rehman, Ghulam Rasool, and Muhammad Rafique, Revenue Patwaris, at present posted at Central Record Office, Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore have made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the Member (Revenue) Boar of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders, dated 24‑4‑1985 and 2‑1‑1985, whereby the services of the appellants have been put at the disposal of the different District Authorities be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction, and that appellants be ordered to continue to serve in the Central Record Office and continue working under the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one winding up of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department on 30‑9‑1984 all officers and the staff working at Headquarters' Office at Farid Kot House, Lahore at 7/72 Shahra‑e‑Quaid‑e‑Azam, Lahore and in the Basement of Central Record Officer, Lahore were directed to report for duty to the Welfare Wing of Services and General Administration and Information Department, Lahore on 1‑10‑1984 vide order of Mr. M.H. Akhtar, Secretary (Rural/Admn.), dated 24‑9‑1984. Consequent to this the services of the appellants Bunyad Ali and Mukhtar Ahmad, Qanungos, have been placed at the 'f disposal of the Settlement Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan vide Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 24‑4‑1985 and similarly appellants Nos. 3 to 6 have been ordered to be put at the disposal of the Settlement Officers of the other Districts. The contention of the appellants/ appellant's counsel is that the appellants have been working as Record Keepers in 'the Central Record Office for the last two decades and on declaring them surplus by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, they should have been absorbed at Lahore and their services should not have been placed at the disposal of the Settlement Officers at district level. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate for the appellants. The view points put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appellants had been serving at Lahore for the last 25 years, therefore, their earlier domiciles so given by them of various Districts of the Punjab (where they have now been posted) would stand automatically changed to Lahore and they would not be considered as domicile of those Districts. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to substantiate his view, point by quoting the law, rules on this issue but he could not successfully do so. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the posting orders of the appellants issued by the respondents in the various Districts are valid orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
5. The result of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such, in limine.
There are no orders as to costs.
A.A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer