1976 PLP 365 (SCMR)

Rustam S. Sidhwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing : 20th November 1975. JUDGMEMT MUHAMMAD GUL., J.‑This petition is from the order of the Sind Service Tribunal dated 26‑2‑1975 dismissing in liming the petitioner's appeal in respect of his claim for arrears of salary due to him from 1st March 1956 to 29th April 1960, during which he was wrongfully kept out of employment. The petitioner, who was born in Jhelum District, was recruited as Sub‑Inspector Police in the Punjab Constabulary in the year 1951. It appears that initially the petitioner's recruitment was by the Central Government but later his services were transferred to what later became the province of West Pakistan. He was transferred to Karachi on account of exigency of service. In the course of his service, he was also promoted to the rank of Inspector. He was however, retired from service on 1‑3‑1956 while serving at Karachi. He represented against his pre‑matur4 retirement and ultimately was re‑instated by the Inspector‑General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore, by order dated 8‑4‑1960. It was further directed that the period between the 1st March 1956 to 29th April 1960 shall be treated as period of duty. Pursuant to the above direction the petitioner claimed from the Province of Sind arrears of salary for the period he remained out of employment. This was refused and ultimately the matter was taken in appeal to the Sind Service Tribunal apparently because the petitioner was retired from service from Karachi, and also resumed service at Karachi. Presently he is also being paid his pension at Karachi. The Service Tribunal took the view that the petitioner being born in Jhelum District bad his domicile of origin in the province of Punjab and merely because during the service he was transferred to Karachi, he did not acquire fresh domicile in the province of Sind. The petitioner seeks leave against tie above order. Mr. Rustam S, Sidhwa. who appeared on behalf of the respondent conceded that the clam of arrears, if any, would be against the province of Punjab. Apparently, he made this concession on instruction from the Advocate‑General, Punjab. It is perfectly settled that the domicile of origin "holds stronger and less easily shaken of Winaus v. Attorney General (1940 A C 290). It is equally well settled that fresh domicile is not acquired by transfer from one administrative unit call it a Province or a State in a country to another unit. Therefore, the view taken by the Service Tribunal is unexceptionable and the petitioner s claim, if any, will be against the province where he has his domicile and where he entered service, and not where he was transferred or retired. With the above observation the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.