PLC(CS) 2009

2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.1697 of 2009, decided on 30th January, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Umar Ata Bandial, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Umar Ata Bandial, J
Parties MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Gorraya for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 199, 35 & 38

Constitutional petition

Transfer of civil servant under Wedlock Policy

Petitioner who was a Federal Government employee was posted at place and his wife was a teacher in the Provincial Government posted at place `B'

Husband had applied through his Department to the Provincial Education Department for transfer of petitioner's wife at place `L' under the Wedlock Policy of Provincial Government

Petitioner's wife who was sought to be transferred to place `L' had made no application to the defendant

Petitioner did not have a mature grievance against the department for determination by the High Court

Husband claimed a right for his wife and the two were treated as having common interest under the Wedlock Policy

Wife could apply to the department seeking her transfer under the Wedlock Policy to the station of her husband

If she would approach the department, department would consider such representation strictly in accordance with law and decide the same expeditiously

Order accordingly. Syeda Adeeba Anjum v. Secretary Government of Punjab Education Department Lahore and another 2004 PLC (C.S.) 622 and Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano 2003 SCMR 325 rel.

Judgment & Decree

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

Submits that the petitioner No.1 is a Federal Government employee posted in Lahore and his wife petitioner No.2 is a teacher in the Provincial Government posted at Bahawalnagar. Further submits that the petitioner No.1 has through his employer, Income Tax Department, applied to the Provincial Education Department for transfer of the petitioner's wife under the wedlock policy of the Provincial Government. He relies on Syeda Adeeba Anjum v. Secretary Government of Punjab Education Department, Lahore and another 2004 PLC (C.S.) 622 to submit that application under the aforesaid policy are liable to be considered with "compassion and kindness". It is noted that in the present case the petitioner's wife is sought to be transferred to Lahore but she has made no application to respondent No.2, Secretary Education. Accordingly, as such the petitioners do not have a mature grievance against the said respondent, for determination by the Court.

2. Be that as it may, the petitioner No. 1 claims a right for his wife and the two are treated as having common interest under the wedlock policy. Accordingly, if so advised, petitioner No.2 may apply to respondent No.2 seeking her transfer under the wedlock policy to the station of her husband, petitioner No.1. If so approached, the respondent No.2 shall under the rules contained in Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano 2003 SCMR 325 consider such a representation strictly in accordance with law and decide the same expeditiously.

3. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-54/L Order accordingly.