1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ASIF ALI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | ASIF ALI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ASIF ALI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Kamal for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl. A.-G. with Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Kamal for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl. A.-G. with Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1990. The petitioner is serving as a Patwari in Irrigation Department. He was transferred from Halqa Chak Chaudhary to Halqa Tondey vide order dated 18-9-1990. The petitioner has challenged this order through this Constitutional petition; which was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to order transfer of the petitioner, therefore, the order is bad in law.
3. On the other hand, learned Addl. A: G. argued that the Provincial Government imposed a ban on the transfers of the civil servants and according to the policy circular dated 18-3-1990, transfers could only be made with the approval of the Ministers. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Minister directed the transfer of respondent No.
2. It is added that even otherwise under section 9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1975 the petitioner is liable to be posted anywhere.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Minister only recommended transfer and the order was issued by respondent No.
2. The respondent No. 3 represented to the Minister that he is posted at a distant place from his home, therefore, may be transferred. The request was found genuine and the Minister recommended his transfer. There is nothing wrong with the recommendation. The order was passed by respondent No.
2. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of law or rules. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./A-1196/L Petition dismissed.