Repatriation to parent department

2022 PLC(CS) 1289 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Repatriation to parent departmentScope

Petitioner questioned his repatriation from the appointment as Assistant Commissioner (BPS-17) in Ex-PCS Cadre by way of nomination to his parent department through a notification issued by Chief Secretary, which was in pursuance of the directions contained in a judgment passed by Supreme Court

Validity

Appointment of petitioner in Ex-PCS cadre had already been declared as illegal by the Supreme Court

Supreme Court had already held that no mechanism was provided for nomination of the officers; that it was the sole discretion of the Chief Minister to recruit/nominate an employee to the post of Assistant Commissioner in exercise of powers under Rule 5(4)(b) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964; that the discretion to exercise the powers was required to be structured by framing policy, which should encourage merit; that the petitioner along with others was found in excess of the quota as per the list provided, therefore, they were not entitled to continue in their offices

Directions of the Supreme Court were still in field and the High Court was bound to follow it under the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2021 PLC(CS) 777 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Rr.7, 9 & 20-AESTACODE, 1989 Edition, Srl. Nos.28 & 29Establishment Manual, Vol.I (O& M)Establishment Division's O.M. No.1(28)/75-D.II, dated 6-3-1975Civil Service Regulation No.77, 2014 Edition (Revised)DeputationAbsorptionRepatriation to parent departmentPetitioners were civil servants posted for many years on deputation in Federal Directorate of Education (FDE)

Petitioners assailed notifications issued by authorities repatriating them to their respective departments and sought their absorption in FDE

Validity

Deputationists serving in FDE against posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above were not holding appointment on regular basis under Federal Government

Appointment on deputation was on temporary nature

Any officer was said to be on deputation under Civil Service Regulation No.77, 2014 Edition (Revised) when he was detached on special 'temporary duty' for performance of which there was no permanently or temporarily sanctioned appointment

Deputationists appointed to posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above in FDE could not be considered for appointment by transfer in FDE as they did not hold an appointment on regular basis under Federal Government

Petitioners deputationists were permanent employees of Provincial Education Departments or they were employees of Education Department of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan

Procedure for absorption of a deputationist in borrowing department prescribed in Establishment Division's O.M. No.1 (28)/75-D.II, dated 6-3-1975, could not override the method of appointment prescribed in recruitment rules and in particular the procedure for appointment by transfer prescribed in recruitment rules

Deputationist serving in FDE could not be absorbed if he/she did not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment by transfer prescribed in recruitment rules

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 SCMR 54 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 7Appointment by absorptionRepatriation to parent department

Appellant was appointed as Agricultural Officer (BPS-17) by initial recruitment in the Balochistan Agricultural and Cooperative Department, and then absorbed against the post of Research Officer (BPS-17) in the Planning and Development Department without affecting the seniority of the Research Officers already working in the department

Plea on behalf of appellant that his case was not covered by the dicta rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752), Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Muzaffar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (Crl. O. P. No.31 of 2016 decided on 10.05.2016), therefore, the notification repatriating him to his parent department could not hold the field; held, that the relevant service rules of the Provincial Planning and Development Department provided that vacancy of Research Officer was to be filled by initial recruitment, thus, there was no scope for filling such vacancy by promotion, transfer, absorption or by any other method which was not provided by the relevant law and rules

Appointment of appellant by absorption being hit by the judgments rendered in the cases of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Muzaffar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (Crl. O. P. No.31 of 2016 decided on 10.05.2016) could not be maintained

Appellant had thus rightly been repatriated to his parent department

Review petition was dismissed accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS) 564 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 7Appointment by absorptionRepatriation to parent department

Appellant was appointed as Agricultural Officer (BPS-17) by initial recruitment in the Balochistan Agricultural and Cooperative Department, and then absorbed against the post of Research Officer (BPS-17) in the Planning and Development Department without affecting the seniority of the Research Officers already working in the department

Plea on behalf of appellant that his case was not covered by the dicta rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752), Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Muzaffar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (Crl. O. P. No.31 of 2016 decided on 10.05.2016), therefore, the notification repatriating him to his parent department could not hold the field; held, that the relevant service rules of the Provincial Planning and Development Department provided that vacancy of Research Officer was to be filled by initial recruitment, thus, there was no scope for filling such vacancy by promotion, transfer, absorption or by any other method which was not provided by the relevant law and rules

Appointment of appellant by absorption being hit by the judgments rendered in the cases of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and Muzaffar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (Crl.O.P. No.31 of 2016 decided on 10.05.2016) could not be maintained

Appellant had thus rightly been repatriated to his parent department

Review petition was dismissed accordingly.