2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Petitioner, Farhad Ali, an Octroi Moharrir, appointed on 1‑7‑1966 was given Selection Grade of BPS.7 on 5‑7‑1992. He was moved over to BPS‑8 on 2‑i2‑1997. Upon retirements of Fida Muhammad, Otroi Inspector (BPS‑7) and Ghulam Muhammad, Superintendent (BPS‑9), the petitioner was directed to take over the charge of Taxation Branch, vide Order No.147/74‑II/TCNK, dated, 14‑10‑1998 (Annexure‑A) in his own pay and scale allegedly issued by respondent No.1. On 15‑10‑1998, Diyar Khan, respondent No.3, Junior Clerk, was directed to take over the charge of supervision, main office of Taxation Branch (Annexure‑B). Aggrieved of the subsequent order of respondent No.1, the petitioner invoking Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has approached this Court for declaration of order, dated 15‑10‑1998 as illegal, void, without lawful authority and in " excess of powers conferred upon respondent No. l . The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of direction to the respondents to hand over the additional charge of the Taxation Branch of the main office of the Town Committee to the petitioner.

2. Mr. Fazal Illahi Khan, Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that his client being senior in grade and his order of taking over the additional charge of Taxation Branch (Annexure‑A) was made one day prior to respondent No.3, therefore, vested right has accrued to` the petitioner to hold the said charge.

3. When the attention of the leaned counsel for tire petitioner was drawn towards Annexure-"A" which is an unsigned document by the competent authority, the learned counsel referred to Annexure "A/1" and insisted that through this order, the petitioner had been authorized to be incharge of the Taxation Branch. Annexure‑"A/1" is an internal handwritten memo/summery, probably by the official of the department proposing or suggesting handing over the charge of Taxation Branch as stopgap arrangement to Farhad Ali, petitioner. At the foot of the said note, the phrase "as proposed" has been mentioned with no signature at all. We failed to understand the‑basis of the petitioner to assume that he has been given the additional charge of supervision of the Taxation Branch of the Town Committee without legally/officially documented order. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to how the vested right of the petitioner has been violated by not appointing him as the supervisor, of the Taxation Branch. It is within the absolute discretion of the competent Authority to hand over the additional charge of any branch to any officer of the department proficient enough to his satisfaction.

4. It is observed with great regret that writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution has become a fashion and pass time of the people, any one who is annoyed by any act or order of his supervisor, can approach the Court without the slightest hesitation. Intentions of the petitioner are apparent that he does not want to let go a very waxy position at any cost, which carries some very visible benefits.

5. It is always expected of the counsel that they would give legal assistance and guidance to the clients and avoid filing these frivolous petitions. Hence the petition is dismissed in limine with special costs of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand) under section 35‑A, C.P.C. H.B.T./473/P Petition dismissed.