1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1988. SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI (MEMBER).‑‑The appellant, Rana Muhammad Ashraf, an M.E.S. employee serving in D.W. & C.E. (Army) contests through this appeal the orders of Engineer‑in‑Chief transferring him to Frontier Works Organization (FWO). The appellant's grievance is that the Engineer‑in -Chief was not competent to transfer him to another organization without his consent.

2. Apart from opposing the appeal on merits the learned counsel for the respondents has raised two preliminary objections. The first is that the departmental appeal dated 9‑3‑1986 was incompetent as it was addressed to E‑in- C the officer who passed the orders of transfer and not to the next higher authority. A reference to the record shows that the representation was in fact addressed to E‑in‑C and not to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, the next higher authority. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to meet this objection. Relying on the case reported as S. Ali Raza Shah Naqvi v. Government of Sind P L D 1979 S C 856, we hold that there was no departmental representation competently made in this case and consequently the present appeal is incompetent by virtue of subsection (a) to section 4(1) of the Service I Tribunals Act 1973.

3. The second preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appeal before the Tribunal is barred by time. The order of transfer was admittedly served on the appellant on 6‑3‑1986 whereas the appeal before this Tribunal was filed on 21‑7‑1986 i.e. 137 days after the service of the order of transfer and 134 days after the representation made to E‑in‑C. Thus the appeal is clearly barred by limitation and the learned counsel for the appellant had no explanation for the delay. There is no application for condonation of delay either. On these facts the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by time.

4. On merits the appellant's case as stated by his counsel is that E‑in‑C had no powers to transfer him to FWO, a different organisation from the department the appellant was serving in. In this connection he placed reliance on the opinion of the Establishment Division in some other case that the E‑in‑C could not transfer the officer to FWO without the consent of the officer concerned. The learned counsel for the respondents in his reply referred to Ministry of Defence Notification No. SRO‑7 (KE)/86, dated 23‑1‑1986, para. 8 of which provides that MES civilian employees are liable' to be posted to FWO. He then went on to refer to Annexure `A' to Defence Services Regulations, Passage Regulations 1980 on page 193 of which E‑in‑C has been designated as the authority empowered to transfer civilian officers and subordinates of the MES Department. Reading the two provisions together, submitted the learned counsel, it is clear that the E‑in‑C has the powers to transfer a civilian employee of MES to FWO. The learned counsel also contended that even otherwise, being a civil servant the appellant was liable under section 10 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 to be transferred to any post under the Federal Government. It was, therefore, urged that the appeal may be dismissed.

5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides and are of the view that the order of transfer being impugned by the appellant was validly made and was not violative of any rules or regulations on the subject. f In an identical case (Appeal No. 102(R) of 1987) this Tribunal took a similar view and we are in respectful agreement with that. The appellant's grievance is misconceived.

6. For the reasons stated above, we find no substance in this appeal and dismiss it as incompetent, barred by time and also on merits.

7. No orders as to costs. M.Y.H./424/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.