1998 PLP 2075 (SCMR)
Ministry of Interior and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL MUHAMMAD KAKAR, INSPECTOR, F. I. A. ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2075 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | Ministry of Interior and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL MUHAMMAD KAKAR, INSPECTOR, F. I. A. ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2075 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2075 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2075 (SCMR) (Ministry of Interior and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GUL MUHAMMAD KAKAR, INSPECTOR, F. I. A. ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 1995.
- Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 28th May, 1995, passed in Appeal No. 396‑Q/1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Fundamental Rules, R. 110‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil servant, while serving petitioner (agency), was transferred on deputation to another agency for period of three years‑‑‑Civil servant on receipt of transfer order, instead of reporting for duty in his new assignment, assailed his transfer order before Service Tribunal by way of appeal‑‑‑Service Tribunal, while conceding that under S. 10, Civil Servants Act, 1973, civil servant was liable to transfer anywhere, found that case of civil servant was distinguishable from ordinary cases of transfer as his transfer from parent Department to another Department tantamounted to foreign service‑‑‑Transfer order of civil servant was set aside by Service Tribunal with direction to petitioner to take civil servant on duty immediately with all consequential benefits‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, whether civil servant's transfer on deputation from his parent department to another department was tantamount to foreign service and, as such, same was violative of Fundamental Rule 110.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.
This' petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 28-5-1995 whereby the respondent's appeal to challenge his transfer on deputation from F.I.R., Quetta to Anti-Narcotics Task Force Unit, Quetta (A.N.T.F.) was accepted, the impugned transfer order was set aside and the petitioner-Agency was directed "to take the respondent on duty immediately with all consequential benefits".
2. The background of the case is that the respondent while serving the petitioner-Agency as Inspector was transferred on deputation to A.N.T.F. for a period of three years vide order dated 4-5-1994. He was accordingly relieved from the office of petitioner No.6 on 8-5-1994. Instead of reporting for duty in A.N.T.F. at Quetta he assailed his transfer order before the Tribunal by way of an appeal. The main grievance of the respondent was that impugned order of his transfer on deputation had been issued without his consent inasmuch as obtaining of option, before the issuance of order of deputation, was a sine was relieved he had the Tribunal maintained that of the Agency.
3. The petitioners in their comments before the Tribunal maintained that on their request the respondent and few other officers of the Agency were transferred with the approval of the Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad, to A.N.T.F. on deputation for a period of three years.
4. The Tribunal, while conceding that under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, a Civil servant is liable to transfer anywhere, held that the case of the respondent was distinguishable from the ordinary cases of transfer. In reaching this conclusion it was observed:(i) that A.N.T.F. having been 'created distinctly' had nothing to' do with the F.I.A., wherefor the respondent was specifically recruited; (ii) that respondent's juniors had been promoted by the Agency, nonetheless, he was deputed to A.N.T.F. without promoting him and; (iii) that before deputing to A.N.T.F. the respondent's option ought to have been obtained as required under F.R. 110.
5. Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney-General; appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the Tribunal had erred to hold. ,that F.R. 110 provides that no civil servant can be transferred to foreign service without his consent. In this context, it was submitted that the respondent was not transferred to foreign service, therefore, invocation of F.R.110 in the case by the Tribunal was legally unsound. The learned Deputy Attorney-General urged that under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, every civil servant under the Federal Government is liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan, on any post under the Federal Government, or any Provincial Government or local authority or a corporation or body set up by any such Government.
6. Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, whether the respondent's transfer on deputation from F.I.A. to A.N.T.F. was tantamount to foreign service and as such it was violative of F.R.110? A.A./1-17/S Leave granted.