1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER (I.S.), WAPDA COMPUTER CENTRE (H.Q.), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ismail arid Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER (I.S.), WAPDA COMPUTER CENTRE (H.Q.), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Ismail arid Noor Muhammad Magsi, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER (I.S.), WAPDA COMPUTER CENTRE (H.Q.), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Civil servant who was transferred from one place of working to another had challenged his transfer order directly filing appeal before Tribunal‑‑‑Appeal before Tribunal could only be filed after exhausting departmental remedy by preferring a departmental representation or appeal against order of Authority‑‑‑Civil servant having failed to do so, his appeal before Tribunal was incompetent.
Judgment & Decree
NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER): ‑‑The appellant Mr. Muhammad Amin, Assistant Director, WAPDA Computer Centre Faisalabad is aggrieved by office order dated 16‑10‑1994 whereby he has been'' transferred from Faisalabad and posted to Gujrat against a vacant post, HO‑challenged that order by filing a Writ Petition No. 12533 of 1994 in the Lahore High Court and according to the learned counsel, the said petition was withdrawn by the appellant on 23‑10‑1994, where after he preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on 22‑11‑1994.
2. Appeal to Service Tribunal can be preferred by an aggrieved civil servant under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, only after exhausting departmental. Remedy by preferring a departmental representation or appeal against the impugned order. To this proposition the learned counsel submitted that since the posting order has not affected the terms and conditions of the appellant and it is not an adverse order, therefore, no departmental appeal or representation was required to be filed before coming to the Tribunal. We are sorry we do not subscribe to this view because the appellant has challenged before us the notification dated 16‑10‑1994 with the prayer that the same be set aside. It is clear that the grievance before this Tribunal has arisen out of the transfer order dated 16‑10‑1994 whereby he is aggrieved and is impugned in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is incompetent under section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act. 1973 and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1045/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.