1994 PLP 537 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑ Transfer ‑‑‑Transfer of employee, a Railway Guard from one place of working to another‑‑‑Order of Authority transferring services of employee from one place of working to another had been challenged on ground that vacancies at place of working from where he had been transferred was of permanent nature and that his transfer was violative of policy decision wherein a ban had been imposed and no order of the nature could be passed without specific approval from the Prime Minister's Secretariat‑‑‑Authorities in best interest of service could make a change in organisational structure in accordance with law/rules‑‑‑Order under challenge being simply a transfer order through which service of employee had been placed at disposal of other Station Manager for further utilisation, employee could not challenge that order‑‑‑Even otherwise employee had got no vested right to claim their posting at a particular place. Arif Saeed for Petitioner. This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1408 of 1994 and 1409 of 1994 as both of them involve same questions of law and facts petitioners in these cases are employees of Railways who were working as Guard Grade‑I and Grade‑II respectively at Narowal Junction. Exception is taken through this Constitutional petition to the order dated 19‑1‑1994 of respondent No. 2 Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways through which petitioners have been directed to report at Lahore Headquarter with Station Manager with a further direction to him that he should utilize their services on roster according to their seniority. It is argued by the learned counsel that respondent No. 2 without any authorization has abolished the Guards Headquarter from Narowal respecting which he had got no jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the vacancies of Guard at Narowal Junction are of permanent nature and cannot be withdrawn without the ‑concurrence of O & M Unit as, envisaged in Memo dated 21‑7‑1980 issued by Pakistan Railways. It is further argued that the impugned transfer/withdrawal is violative of policy decision wherein a ban‑has been imposed and no order of this nature can be passed without specific approval from the Prime Minister's Secretariat. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. I have noticed that the petitioners in both these cases are working for the last more than three years at Narowal Junction as Guards. They do not have got any vested right to claim their posting at a particular place. Learned counsel has not denied the competency of respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioners. However, his argument is that instead of making a transfer order, the very Headquarter of the Guards has been closed at Narowal Junction. I am afraid all these pleas could have got no force. Even if there is case of some organizational change the petitioners have got no vested right to challenge the same. The Railway Authorities in the best interest of service can make a change in the organizational structure in accordance with law/rules. The impugned order, under challenge is simply a transfer order through which the services of the petitioners have been placed at the disposal of Station Manager, Lahore for further utilization. Accordingly writ petition being without any force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑1551/L Petition dismissed.