2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Rana MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Aqeel Ahmad Khan, Chairman |
| Parties | Rana MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Aqeel Ahmad Khan, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Rana MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Ehsanul Haq for Appellant.
- S. Abbas Raza, D.A. for Respondents.
- M.Y. Bhatti for Respondent No.3.
- I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this premature transfer has been made without any valid reason. There is no mention of any ground for this premature transfer either in the impugned order or in the order rejecting departmental representation. Thus, I find that impugned order of transfer is clearly violative of the Transfer Policy.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Civil servant who was a Sub‑Engineer, was transferred from one place of working to another and after only 8 months he was again transferred to another place‑‑‑Such transfer of civil servant which was premature was made without any valid reason‑‑‑Order of premature transfer of civil servant being violative of policy, was set aside, by Service Tribunal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AQEEL AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑‑The appellant who is a Sub‑Engineer, was transferred and posted in Municipal Corporation, Multan on 8‑7‑1996. After about 8 months, he has been ordered to be transferred from Vehari to Lodheran vide order dated 6‑8‑1997. The departmental representation filed by the appellant against this order was rejected on 16‑8‑1997. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this premature transfer has been made without any valid reason. There is no mention of any ground for this premature transfer either in the impugned order or in the order rejecting departmental representation. Thus, I find that impugned order of transfer is clearly violative of the Transfer Policy. On the foregoing reasons the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. H.B.T./556/St/P Appeal accepted.