1982 PLP 1036 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ R. 37 ‑‑‑‑Transfer‑‑Naib‑Qasid/orderly cannot be transferred to any place other than his home district‑Appointment of appellant as orderly to inspector Post Office `B' (his home district)‑Office of Inspector Post Office `B' temporarily located at `H' hence appel lant posted at `H'‑‑Transfer of appellant as Chokidar at B, held, competent. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Vlth Labour Court Hyderabad, given on 28th January, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman challenging the orders of his transfer from Hyderabad to Badin. The sole point which has been canvassed before me in this appeal by Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the transfer was illegal being contrary to the provisions of rule 37 of the Post Offices Manual, Volume IV. The said rule is as follows:‑ "All officials of the Department are liable to be transferred to any part of Pakistan unless it is expressly ordered otherwise for any particular class or classes of officials, Transfers should not, however, be ordered except when advisable in the interest of the public service. Postmen, village Postmen and class IV servants should not, except for very special reasons, be transferred from one district to another. All transfers must be subject to the con ditions laid down in Fundamental Rules 15 and 22." The appellant, being in the grade of Naib‑Qasid/Orderly was no doubt not liable to transfer outside his own district, but as appears from tire grievance petition filed by the appellant himself, he was posted as Orderly to the Inspector Post Offices, Badin. However, as there was no accommodation for the Inspector's Office at Badin, his office was tempo rarily located at Hyderabad. It was on that account that the appellant, by reason of his being the orderly of the Inspector of Post Offices, Badin Division, was posted at Hyderabad. However, since the appellant's district admittedly was Badin, he was clearly liable to be posted at Badin. No right guaranteed or secured to the appellant was thus violated by reason of his transfer to Badin as Chowkidar, vide the order dated 1lth April, ly8t. The order of transfer was issued by the Inspector Post Offices, Badin Division, who admittedly was competent to issue the same. I, therefore, see no ground on which the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court can he interfered with. I would accordingly dis miss the appeal in limine.