1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(a) The appellant was being considered for induction to the O.M.G. on the terms and conditions mentioned in Establishment Division's O.M., dated 16‑12‑1992 and the appellant was asked to give his consent. The appellant accordingly gave his consent by accepting the terms and conditions laid down for appointment by transfer in the O.M.G. His parent Department i.e. Government of Balochistan, also gave N.O.C. vide their letter dated 19th December, 1992 providing information/ documents as required by the Establishment Division vide its O.M., dated 10‑12‑1992. When the transaction of permanent absorption in O.M.G. was almost to be completed, the Establishment Division has severed the appellant's connections with the O.M.G. only to deprive him from induction to O.M.G.. The appellant relied on S

1. No.47 at page 352 of ESTACODE, 1989 Edition. (b) The Government's instructions regarding deputationists contained in Establishment Division's O.M. No.1(28)/71‑D.11, dated 6‑3‑1975 printed at Sl. No.47 at page 352 of ESTACODE, are being violated. Under these instructions, a deputationist is required to be reverted to his parent Department on expiry of the period of deputation unless the intention is to permanently absorb the deputationists in the cadre w department where he is serving on deputation and the recruitment rules for the post provided for such a course. The appellant on completion of period of 3 years was not reverted to his parent department, because the intention of the borrowing Government was to absorb him permanently, under the rules. The borrowing Government i.e. the Federal Government (Establishment Division) accordingly obtained consent of the appellant as well as the Government of Balochistan, as prescribed under the Rules. In the above‑referred O.M., dated 6‑3‑1975, it has been further provided that with the completion of formalities i.e. consent/agreement of the deputationist and his parent department, the deputationist will be treated as regular member of the establishment of the borrowing department. (c) Neither consent of the appellant nor his parent Department was obtained before terminating his connections from the O.M.G. The appellant or his parent Government had never revoked their earlier consent/agreement N.O.C. for induction to the.O.M.G. (d) The appellant has been discriminately treated as may other deputationist‑‑‑Section Officers, who are posted against ex cadre posts, were not deprived of their connections with the O.M.G. The appellant quoted two precedents e.g. Mr. Noor Ali Khan, Deputy Manager, Personnel and Administration Department (B‑18) Naval Headquarters, Islamabad and Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Abro, Research Officer (B‑17), Defence‑Science and Technology Organization, who were transferred and posted as Section Officer in the O.M.G. under section 10, and then their services were placed at the disposal of National Housing Authority for posting as Assistant Director, but their lien in the O.M‑G. was not terminated, and they are still expecting induction to O.M.G. (e) Since the services of the appellant were requisitioned by the Narcotic Control Division by the Establishment Division and the Establishment Division accordingly placed the services of the appellant at the disposal of the Narcotics Control Division, there is no justification for severing his connection with the O.M.G. on ground that the appellant is no more an employee of the Federal Government.

5. The Establishment Division have filed their written objections at the time of hearing. They have taken a stand that the appellant is a civil servant of the Balochistan Government and cannot come to this Tribunal. On merit it is stated that although the appellant as well as the Government of Balochistan had given their consent to the appellant's induction to the O.M.G. under the Federal Government, but mere consent from the appellant or his parent department does not entitle him for induction in O.M.G. as no positive order was issued to that effect. The appellant remained as deputationist till his services were requisitioned by and placed at the disposal of Narcotics Control Division. According to respondent, the appellant was deputed to the Federal Government to serve as Section Officer in the O.M.G. and a deputionist cannot be lent further by the borrowing department. However, in the exigency of service, the services of the appellant were placed at the disposal of the Narcotics Control Division for posting him as Assistant Director in A.N.T.F. As such the appellant ceased to hold the post of Section Officer on his posting as Assistant Director, Anti Narcotics Task Force. Therefore, he ran neither claim any lien in the Office Management Group nor any right to consideration for induction to that Group.

6. We have heard the appellant and the representatives of the Establishment Division. As regards the point of jurisdiction, we have been passing orders in service matters connected with civil posts of Federation of Pakistan. In this connection, we may refer to the judgments passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 88(R) of 1994 and 145(x) of 1994 filed by Messrs Siraj Mustafa Jokhio and Ghulam Muhammad Memon, respectively. In those cases, we had examined the rights of the C.S.S. candidates to hold certain posts allocated to different service Groups in connection with the affairs of the Federation. We held in those cases that the persons who got better merit position in the C.S.S. Examination, could not be denied their rights to the allocation of better service Group. The appeals were accordingly allowed. It is, therefore, not beyond our jurisdiction to pass an order in the matters connected withholding of civil posts under the Federal Government.

7. As regards merits of the case, the appellant wants consideration for, induction to the O.M.G. by completing the transaction already processed by the Government. After going through the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, we find the appellant was deputed as Section Officer in the Offence Management Group under the Federal Government. He was being considered for induction to the O.M.G. on the specified terms and conditions and both the appellant as well as his parent Department i.e. Government of Balochistan, have given their consent and the transaction was nearly to be completed. But meanwhile the services of the appellant were requisitioned by the Narcotics Control Division and the Establishment Division accordingly placed his services at the disposal of that Division for posting as Assistant Director in A.N.T.F. We are of the view that when the appellant's case was under process for induction to the O.M.G. and there was the intention 'of the Federal Government (Establishment Division) to permanently absorb the appellant, and the recruitment rules for the post provide for such a course and consent of the appellant and his parent Department was also obtained, thus on completion of these formalities the appellant will be treated as regular member of the establishment of the borrowing department i.e. the Federal Government. This view is strengthened by general instructions regarding deputationists mentioned at Sl. No.47 at page 352 of ESTACODE, 1989 Edition. We may also refer to Recruitment Rules for Office Management Group regarding appointment by transfer, under para. 9‑A at page 1063 of ESTACODE. 1989 Edition. which reads as under:‑‑ "9‑A. (a) Appointment by transfer.‑‑‑ Civil servants belonging to other occupational groups, services, cadres and the Provincial Governments, including those serving in the Federal Government on deputation basis, may be appointed as Section Officer in the Federal Government, in public interest, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, and with the approval of the competent Authority. The consent of the Ministry/Division/Provincial Government and the officer concerned will be obtained before making such appointments)."

6. A perusal of the above rule indicates that the civil servants in other groups, services and cadres of the Federal Government and those of Provincial Governments including those serving in the Federal Government on deputation basis, are eligible for appointment by transfer in the O.M.G. in the prescribed manner. It is thus clear that the persons who are not on deputation could also be considered for induction in the O.M.G. The appellant has been serving in the Federal Government as Section Officer on deputation basis from 1989 to 1994 and even now he is working on deputation basis as Assistant Director, A.N.T.F., under the Federal Government, therefore, he has not lacked eligibility for consideration for induction in the O.M.G. under Rule 9‑A. A mere fact that he has ceased to be a Section Officer, did not disentitle him for consideration for induction, especially when the exercise of induction in O.M.G. has already been taken by the Government, The appellant and his parent Department had already been informed that he was being considered for induction and for that purpose the consent /agreement of the appellant as well as the Government of Balochistan has been obtained. This exercise is required to be processed to its logical end. The appellant alongwith others, is to be considered for induction without discrimination. The appellant pointed out during the course of hearing that many of his colleagues who are posted in other departments, are also being considered for induction in the O.M.G. and the departmental representative of the Establishment Division, did not deny the assertion.

7. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, are of the view that the appellant shall not be denied the right to consideration for induction in the O.M.G. under Rule 9‑A referred to in para. 5 above. We, therefore, remand the case to the Establishment Division with the direction that B the appellant should be considered for induction to the O.M.G: alongwith others without discrimination and the exercise already taken by the Government in regard to induction of the deputationists, should accordingly be processed to its logical end. With the above direction, the appeal stands disposed of. No order for costs. A.A./1087/3r. F Case remanded.