PLC(CS) 2004

2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SALEEM ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division,

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.41 of 2004, decided on 26th January, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties SALEEM ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division,
Primary Law Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SALEEM ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney‑General for Pakistan, Aslam Sanjrani, Additional Secretary, Establishment Division and Hafiz S.A. Rehman, D.A.‑G. for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 26th January, 2004.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑1‑2004 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No.1439(R)/CS of 2003). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Police Service of Pakistan (Composition., Cadre and Seniority) Rules,' 1985‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Transfer and posting of civil servant as Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D.)‑‑‑Service Tribunal dismissed appeal of civil servant‑‑‑Contention of civil servant was that his transfer as O.S.D, for indefinite period was harmful for his future career; that he wanted to work to justify his drawing of salary and allowances; that many senior officers posted as O.S.D. were awaiting their further posting since long; and he ought to have been posted against a cadre post in terms of R.9((l) of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985‑‑‑Validity ‑Posting of senior officers as O.S.D. for interminable period without assigning to them responsibilities was a pathetic state of affairs‑‑Federal Government must properly address such issue‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal with directions to Government to forthwith review cases of all such officers in order to consider suitability for their further postings and. also to evolve a policy for periodic review of such cases. Syed Niaz Hussain Shah Bukhari, Technicia (Process) v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited, Islamabad 2003 SCMR 228 and Syed Ajmal Hussain Bokhari v. Commissioner, Rawalpindi 1997 PLC (C.S.) 754 ref. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 8‑1‑2004 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.1439(R)/C.S of 2003.

2. The petitioner, an officer of the Police Service of Pakistan, was posted in the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan. He was transferred and posted as O.S.D. in the Establishment Division by Notification dated 20‑11‑2003. His departmental representation there against was rejected. Therefore, he filed Appeal No. 1439(R)/CS of 2003 before the Tribunal which was dismissed, by the impugned judgment dated 8‑1‑2004. Hence this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for leave to appeal.

3. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that he was no more interested to remain posted with the Board of Investment as his further stay over there could be harmful for his future career. He, however, submitted that his transfer as O.S.D. for an indefinite period was not proper. He drew our attention to a long list of Officers on Special Duty (O.S.D.) in the Establishment Division who were awaiting, their further posting since long. He further contended that he had a right to work so as to justify the drawal of salary and other allowances. He relied on the cases of Syed Niaz Hussain Shah Bukhari, Technicia (Process) v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited, Islamabad 2003 SCMR 228 and Syed Ajmal Hussain Bokhari v. Commissioner, Rawalpindi 1997 PLC (C.S.) 754 in support of his contentions. The petitioner lastly submitted that he ought to have been posted against a cadre post in terms of rule 9(1) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, the learned Attorney‑General for Pakistan submitted that by virtue of section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1.973, every civil servant was liable to serve anywhere in any equivalent post in the Federal or Provincial Government or a local authority, Corporation or Body, set‑up or established by any such Government. The matter of posting and 'transfer of civil servants was essentially an administrative one which squarely fell within the domain of the relevant departmental authorities. The learned Attorney‑General further pointed out that, even on merits, the petitioner had not been able to make out a case in his favour.

5. We have heard the petitioner and the learned Attorney‑General for Pakistan at some length. The petitioner has himself stated that he does not want to continue in the Board of Investment as it might be prejudicial to his career. On the last date of hearing, the Chairman of the Board of Investment had taken strong exception to the posting of the petitioner in the Board. The petitioner, however, placed on record a list of senior officers who were being continued as Officers on Special Duty (O. S. D.) in the Establishment Division for interminable period without assigning to them any responsibilities. , This is apathetic state of affairs. It is high time that the issue is properly addressed by the Federal Government the Attorney General for Pakistan shall take up the matter with the Establishment Division which shall immediately undertake an exercise to review the, cases of all such officers in order to consider the suitability for their further posting. The Federal Government may also like to evolve a policy for periodic review of such cases.

6. However, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. This is not a fit case for interference by this Court. 7: Fox the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused with the above directions. S.A.K./S‑16/S Leave refused.