2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"Spouses already posted at one station, including those posted on deputation beyond the prescribed maximum period, may normally not be disturbed without compelling reasons of public interest. Requests for extension of deputation period beyond the permissible limit may be considered with compassion if interests of public service would permit." However, the guidelines which have been provided for facilitating the posting of two spouses who may be Government servants, are subject to the following conditions: "(i) Posting of husband and wife at the same station should not be made by dislocation of any Government servant already serving at a particular station unless his transfer is necessitated by compelling reasons of public interest or within the frame work of general policy of posting and transfers. (ii) The prescribed selection authority should be consulted in each case."

3. Even previously this matter was agitated before this Court through Writ Petition No.859 of 2000 when an injunctive order was issued against the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department. However, the writ petition was later not pressed and it was disposed of with directions to the respondents to pay him his salary for the days he remained on the job with the respondents.

4. The petitioner then tried to seek remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed on 15‑6‑2001 and the observations in the appeal were as follows:‑‑ "It has also been stated in the comments that strictly speaking, the appellant is not a civil servant within the meaning of section 2(l)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. A deputionist really cannot be considered as a civil servant within the meaning of the said section and as such this appeal is incompetent and not maintainable."

5. When asked as to why the petitioner was not being absorbed, the reply of the respondents was that his services were neither appreciated nor these were upto the mark and he was, therefore, an unwanted person. And who in fact had been repatriated but was dragging his feet by using legal forums.

6. The wife of the petitioner is working in an autonomous body while he himself is an employee of the Punjab Government. Whereas, the office memorandum on which he is placing reliance irrespective of the conditions which have been laid even for such‑like considerations does not apply to the Provincial Government employees. Therefore, one wonders if the office memorandum of the Cabinet Division would be at all attracted in such‑like situation and even if it is attracted, the willingness of the department concerned and also the condition to which the guidelines had been subjected come into operation. And one wonders if all this creates a right in favour of the petitioner with the background that he has been claiming an adjustment pursuant to this office memorandum.

7. Under the circumstances and after hearing arguments from both sides, this Court is of the view that the‑petitioner does not have a cause to plead which has been placed through this writ petition which merits dismissal.

8. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that one opening which is possible for the petitioner is to return to his department and then to seek his transfer to Rawalpindi on the basis of his hardship and the Government may take a sympathetic view in view of his spouse working with the Quaid‑e‑Azam University as a lecturer. In case he has a genuine case and deserves consideration, he should be afforded the benefits under the law or policy.

9. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. S.M.A.H./M‑1437/L Writ petition dismissed.