2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioners have impugned the judgment, dated 12‑10‑2002 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No. 341(R)/CE/2000, filed by respondent No. 1, Tariq Mehmood, was accepted and the order passed by the petitioners was set aside with a direction to them to reinstate the respondent on any suitable post commensurate with his qualification and experience. .

2. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are that the respondent was appointed as General Manager (Special Assignments) in Grade‑D on 14‑5‑1998 and on completion of his probation period was confirmed in the petitioners' Company on permanent basis, vide order, dated 18‑11‑1998. The services of the respondent were terminated on 24‑4‑2000 informing him that the post of General Manager (Special 'Assignments) was abolished with effect from 11‑4‑2000. The respondent challenged his termination before departmental authorities but without any success. Thereafter, he approached the Tribunal and the appeal was accepted in terms mentioned earlier.

3. The termination order, inter alia, states that consequent upon decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Company on 11‑4‑2000 the post held by the respondent abolished and the management of the Company expressed its sincere gratitude for the services rendered by the respondent.

4. It is an admitted position that no misconduct was attributed to the respondent. On the contrary, the good work done by him was acknowledged. The petitioners in terms of rule 5.16 of the Company's Employees Service Rules abolished the post, said rule is as under:‑‑ "Abolition of Posts: The event of abolition of a post, the incumbent of such post may be appointed to another post in the same group and pay scale provided such post is vacant and provided the incumbent is considered suitable for that post. In case no such vacancy exists, the Company will have the right either to offer him a lower vacant post but with the protection of his pay or to eventually terminates his services, if no other 'alternative is available."

5. Although, various pleas were raised before the Tribunal by learned counsel of the parties, but before us main plea is that whether the petitioners have complied with the above quoted rule.

6. S. Naeem Bokhari, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the services of the respondent were terminated in view of above rule and no mala fide is involved. Also, it is urged that since the post of the respondent was abolished, his services were declared redundant and in terms of his appointment letter one month's pay was offered to him.

7. As against above, learned counsel for the respondent No. l contended that the petitioners did not comply with the requirements of above quoted rule and that the respondent ought to have been appointed to another post in same group any pay scale, as provided in said rule. He, also contended that in case of no such vacancy, the petitioners could offer him the lower post with protection of his pay. He specifically submitted that one post of General Manager (P&A) as available at that time and the same is still lying vacant. '

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioners that no equivalent post in the same grade and pay scale was available nor any vacancy existed in lower post. In support of this plea, he referred to letter, dated 21‑6‑2000 sent by the petitioners to the respondent with reference to his appeal, dated 25‑5‑2000 addressed to the Chairman of the petitioners. We have examined the above contentions and are of the view that no genuine steps were taken to accommodate the respondent in view of above rule. It was not disclosed before us that how many posts in the same group and pay scale were available when the post was abolished, nor any information was laid before us regarding lower vacant post then existed. Even number of posts was not disclosed. In fact, all necessary information in this regard were neither placed before the Tribunal nor before us. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. In consequence leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.H./S‑297/S Leave refused.